pokerfied.com Promoting poker discussions.

Main Date: 11 Dec 22:13:21 From: Follow Subject: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on this... In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government.  I agree with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room.  What's funny is that most smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are exactly the opposite. As it stands without bans on smoking in private establishments such as bars and restaurants; we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments and owners have the choice of making it one or the other.  There is no law on the books, nor has there ever been a law requiring an establishment to have a smoking area available.  But now, we are talking about a law forbidding a smoking area and somehow decide that this is a vote for more liberty?  I don't think so. I find it curious that I see "Republicans" like Irish Mike on this topic sounding off on a smoking ban.  Aren't "Republicans" supposed to be interested in property rights and the soveriegnty of that ownership?  Are you only a "Republican" when it doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities?  It's quite simple, you don't like being around smokers, you don't enter a restaurant or bar which permits smoking and take your grievance to the owner(s) of said establishment.  I thought only Democrats passed frivolous laws to suit their own comfort. Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and bar smoking ban took effect.  The loophole was that these "clubs" required membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant or bar and were not impacted by the law.  Nearly every bar in Utah and some restaurants turned into "private clubs."  There were however others that did not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking establishment.  How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices.  You want to smoke, here is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. That changed this year when legislators decided that smoking clubs were still evil and possibly breaking god's law, and passed more legislation disallowing even the private clubs from allowing smoking.  Now we have no more choice, no smoking and non-smoking clubs, nothing, just a bunch of "smoke-free" everythings with a group of people with the audacity to say they're on the side of "freedom."  I would venture so far as to say they are fighters for "comfort" but definitely a little bit on the facist side as far as "freedom" is concerned. Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because of this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will.  There is a bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do.  Soon (the law hasn't taken effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of continued competition.  It's over for them. Besides all of the property concerns, most of the anti-smoking crowd should already be well aware of how bunk their "evidence" is regarding second hand smoke.  Every study up until recently has relied on the EPA study entitled "EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders."  Including the studies by WHO and the BMA which titled their studies with very scary names, and discussed how evil the dangers of second hand smoke were.  They also believed that since their study was so long and filled with pointless graphs and ridiculous hyperbole and posturing, that no one would notice little lines like these in the middle of the report: "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98. This was a 30 year study, the longest and most tedious ever performed.  This is also a study by the BMA who, by their own words say things like this:  "The BMA has long supported legislation to ban smoking in public places as a necessary step in combating the dangers of second-hand smoke to non-smokers. Some progress has been made."  These guys are an anti-smoking lobby group, who conducted the longest study on second hand smoke EVER performed, and they found "NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION" but still they persist in trying to ban smoking and putting out studies with information inside them saying there is no significant association, but titling them with names like: "second-hand smoke represents a substantial public health hazard." The EPA study (which all other secondhand smoke studies are based on) was tossed out by not only Judge William Osteen (http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm), but also tossed out by the CRS (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm) Congressional Research Service for those who aren't aware.  Both Judge Osteen and the CRS called the EPA study "unscientific" and described their data as "cherry picked." So voting for or supporting legislation that bans smoking in private businesses in America is not a vote for freedom, nor a vote for health.  It is at best a vote for comfort and a vote to callously disregard the comfort and freedom of others. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:51:27 From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Very simply, in the U.S., majority rules. Since the VAST majority of people don't smoke now, the smokers are in the minority. Give it up. On Dec 11 2006 2:13 PM, Follow wrote: > I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on > this... > > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government. I agree > with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to > choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room. What's funny is that most > smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are exactly > the opposite. > > As it stands without bans on smoking in private establishments such as bars and > restaurants; we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments > and owners have the choice of making it one or the other. There is no law on > the books, nor has there ever been a law requiring an establishment to have a > smoking area available. But now, we are talking about a law forbidding a > smoking area and somehow decide that this is a vote for more liberty? I don't > think so. > > I find it curious that I see "Republicans" like Irish Mike on this topic > sounding off on a smoking ban. Aren't "Republicans" supposed to be interested > in property rights and the soveriegnty of that ownership? Are you only a > "Republican" when it doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities? It's quite > simple, you don't like being around smokers, you don't enter a restaurant or bar > which permits smoking and take your grievance to the owner(s) of said > establishment. I thought only Democrats passed frivolous laws to suit their own > comfort. > > Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and > bar smoking ban took effect. The loophole was that these "clubs" required > membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant > or bar and were not impacted by the law. Nearly every bar in Utah and some > restaurants turned into "private clubs." There were however others that did > not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a > choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking establishment. > How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices. You want to smoke, here > is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. > > That changed this year when legislators decided that smoking clubs were still > evil and possibly breaking god's law, and passed more legislation disallowing > even the private clubs from allowing smoking. Now we have no more choice, no > smoking and non-smoking clubs, nothing, just a bunch of "smoke-free" everythings > with a group of people with the audacity to say they're on the side of > "freedom." I would venture so far as to say they are fighters for "comfort" but > definitely a little bit on the facist side as far as "freedom" is concerned. > > Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because of > this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will. There is a > bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to > drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do. Soon (the law hasn't taken > effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of > continued competition. It's over for them. > > Besides all of the property concerns, most of the anti-smoking crowd should > already be well aware of how bunk their "evidence" is regarding second hand > smoke. Every study up until recently has relied on the EPA study entitled > "EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other > Disorders." Including the studies by WHO and the BMA which titled their studies > with very scary names, and discussed how evil the dangers of second hand smoke > were. They also believed that since their study was so long and filled with > pointless graphs and ridiculous hyperbole and posturing, that no one would > notice little lines like these in the middle of the report: > > "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to > environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and > before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant > associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, > 1973-85, and 1973-98. > > This was a 30 year study, the longest and most tedious ever performed. This is > also a study by the BMA who, by their own words say things like this: > > "The BMA has long supported legislation to ban smoking in public places as a > necessary step in combating the dangers of second-hand smoke to non-smokers. > Some progress has been made." > > These guys are an anti-smoking lobby group, who conducted the longest study on > second hand smoke EVER performed, and they found "NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION" > but still they persist in trying to ban smoking and putting out studies with > information inside them saying there is no significant association, but titling > them with names like: "second-hand smoke represents a substantial public health > hazard." > > The EPA study (which all other secondhand smoke studies are based on) was tossed > out by not only Judge William Osteen > (http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm), but also tossed out > by the CRS (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm) Congressional > Research Service for those who aren't aware. Both Judge Osteen and the CRS > called the EPA study "unscientific" and described their data as "cherry picked." > > So voting for or supporting legislation that bans smoking in private businesses > in America is not a vote for freedom, nor a vote for health. It is at best a > vote for comfort and a vote to callously disregard the comfort and freedom of > others. > > > > > Follow :) ------ brewmaster at brewcam dot com "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right" -RH ---  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com     Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 10:51 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote: > Very simply, in the U.S., majority rules. Since the VAST majority of > people don't smoke now, the smokers are in the minority. Give it up. > ------ > brewmaster at brewcam dot com > > "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if > you look at it right" -RH Tyranny of the majority is all cool with you then, it would be so much better if we didn't actually debate and everyone just accepted conventional wisom.  In fact, if that were the case, the anti-smoking lobby would be entirely powerless now.  Just because the balance happens to be in favor of the hippies who happen to hate smokers (HWHTHS) today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.  I'll help see to it that balance shifts by arguing my point with people like you who would rather I just shut up and go away when I call bullshit. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:15:27 From: Von Fourche Subject: Re: On smoking bans and the like... "Follow" <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in message news:1165875201$919874@recpoker.com... >I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on > this... > > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government. I > agree > with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to > choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room. What's funny is that > most > smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are > exactly > the opposite. Slightly off topic but - the local cable company that I subscribe to was bought by another cable company. They changed and added some new channels. One channels they added is network called American Life TV. They air an old TV series called Hawaiian Eye and another series called 77 Sunset Strip from the late 50's/early 60's. I have never seen these series before. I watched both of these series for the first time tonight. I tell ya, they smoke like crazy in both episodes. In 77 Sunset Strip, one of the stars goes around with a big pipe in his mouth. The pipe looks gigantic. In Hawaiian Eye, the stars smoke like there is no tomorrow. In one scene, the leading man was talking with the leading female, the man was holding a cigarette in his hand, and it was smoking like crazy. The smoke was floating up right between the faces of the man and woman. Kind of funny.     Date: 12 Dec From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: On smoking bans and the like... Kookie Burns was my hero. On Dec 11 2006 11:15 PM, Von Fourche wrote: > "Follow" <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in message > news:1165875201$919874@recpoker.com... > >I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on > > this... > > > > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government. I > > agree > > with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to > > choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room. What's funny is that > > most > > smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are > > exactly > > the opposite. > > > Slightly off topic but - the local cable company that I subscribe to was > bought by another cable company. They changed and added some new channels. > One channels they added is network called American Life TV. They air an > old TV series called Hawaiian Eye and another series called 77 Sunset Strip > from the late 50's/early 60's. I have never seen these series before. I > watched both of these series for the first time tonight. I tell ya, they > smoke like crazy in both episodes. In 77 Sunset Strip, one of the stars > goes around with a big pipe in his mouth. The pipe looks gigantic. In > Hawaiian Eye, the stars smoke like there is no tomorrow. In one scene, the > leading man was talking with the leading female, the man was holding a > cigarette in his hand, and it was smoking like crazy. The smoke was > floating up right between the faces of the man and woman. Kind of funny. Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 12 Dec From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... > we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments > and owners have the choice of making it one or the other.  I'm with you here. But for me it boils down to worker safety. I think it's well within the governments domain to ensure a business owner provides his workers with a safe work environment. If he can't stay in business doing so, then that's a business that has no business existing. You'll have a ways to go before you convince me second-hand smoke is entirely safe. It's the same smoke linked to hundreds of cancers and heart disease, only it's been breathed in once ahead of time. Somehow the second time it gets breathed in it's safe? _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:45:50 From: xyious Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 1:57 AM, O-PGManager wrote: > You'll have a ways to go before you convince me second-hand smoke is entirely > safe. It's the same smoke linked to hundreds of cancers and heart disease, only > it's been breathed in once ahead of time. Somehow the second time it gets > breathed in it's safe? the smoke rising from the cigarette is unfiltered, it's worse than the smoke smokers breathe in. -Alexander Knopf http://www.xyious.com/?links --------  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com       Date: 12 Dec From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 7:45 PM, xyious wrote: > > the smoke rising from the cigarette is unfiltered, it's worse than the > smoke smokers breathe in. > That's just not true. I smoked for 35 years, 30 of those years where camel's (no filter).  Salem (filter and menthol) delivered more nicotine.  Filters do little to reduce delivery of things like tar and nicotine and other bad things, contrary to what cigarette manufactures want smokers to think. > -Alexander Knopf > http://www.xyious.com/?links Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec From: Tanya AKA MissT74 Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 6:45 PM, xyious wrote: > On Dec 12 2006 1:57 AM, O-PGManager wrote: > > You'll have a ways to go before you convince me second-hand smoke is > > entirely > > safe. It's the same smoke linked to hundreds of cancers and heart disease, > only > > it's been breathed in once ahead of time. Somehow the second time it gets > > breathed in it's safe? > > the smoke rising from the cigarette is unfiltered, it's worse than the > smoke smokers breathe in. My sister once said, "If second hand smoke is more dangerous then smoking, then why doesn't everyone just start smoking?" Tongue in cheek, obviously, no comment necessary. ; ) T > > > -Alexander Knopf > http://www.xyious.com/?links _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 5:57 PM, O-PGManager wrote:  > I'm with you here. But for me it boils down to worker safety. I think it's > well within the governments domain to ensure a business owner provides his > workers with a safe work environment. If he can't stay in business doing so, > then that's a business that has no business existing. > > You'll have a ways to go before you convince me second-hand smoke is entirely > safe. It's the same smoke linked to hundreds of cancers and heart disease, > only > it's been breathed in once ahead of time. Somehow the second time it gets > breathed in it's safe? The way these things are "linked" is pure unfiltered bullshit, but that's not a point worth bothering with.  I don't care to make the point that second hand smoke is safe or isn't safe, nor argue it.  I'm only pointing out that it's never been proven. The worker issue is a more interesting one.  Is there someone forcing these employees to work at this particular job?  Being a front line soldier is a dangerous job too, but these risks aren't mitigated and we don't stop fighting wars because of that, we simply allow those of us who don't wish to accept that risk to choose a different profession.  If you're a bartender who doesn't like cigarettes and are worried about the health risks of it, find a bar that disallows smoking, or find a new profession.  No one is pre-ordained to their profession, there are no Alpha and Delta castes here. It's entirely the right of the employee to work in what they perceive to be the safest possible environment.  And it is entirely their right to walk out of a job they no longer perceive to be safe and find a new one. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... >I don't care to make the point that second hand > smoke is safe or isn't safe, nor argue it.  Then don't bring it up in your argument against smoking bans. If you do, expect an avalanche crushing your ridiculous implication that the dangers of second hand smoke are mythical. > The worker issue is a more interesting one.  Is there someone forcing these > employees to work at this particular job? Despite your best wishes, we don't live in a free market utopia. Many people are constrained to certain jobs for a variety of reasons: economic, educational, regional, real or perceived. I'm not allowed to run a factory devoid of safety equipment and standards under the mantra of "no one is being forced to work in my unsafe factory". The reason your "any worker can leave an unsafe work environment" argument doesn't hold up is because it puts the responsibility of auditing and inspecting a workplace's safety on them. As a society, we decided long ago that worker should expect his employer to provide as safe a workplace as possible for him. Maybe you don't agree with having any workplace safety standards, at least you'd be consistent. While we're at it, we can throw away all health regulations as well, and let the free market weed out the cooks who don't wash their hands. You can advocate for all of this, but you'll be in the minority. There are 400 billion dollars in the DOD budget that fly in the face of your assertion that a front line soldier doesn't have his risks mitigated. Even so, in dangerous jobs like highrise construction or military service the risks are clearly ennumerated and hazard pay is provided. I'd hear an argument we could do the same for bartenders, the big difference though is that unlike construction and military service, our country could get along just fine with smokers smoking only in private places. _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 12 Dec 2006 02:21:23 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Tue, 12 Dec 06 6:57:57 GMT, O-PGManager <manager@online-pokerguide.com > wrote: >As a society, we decided long ago that worker should expect his employer to >provide as safe a workplace as possible for him. It's not actually as safe as possible, but safe to the extent that it is reasonable. This "reasonable" ends up ultimately being the level of safety which costs less than the alternative of worker's compensation, fines, etc. associated with unsafe workpalces. There are still plenty of very dangerous workplaces. Some forms of work simply can't be made very safe.           Date: 12 Dec 19:20:34 From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... > >As a society, we decided long ago that worker should expect his employer to > >provide as safe a workplace as possible for him. > > It's not actually as safe as possible, but safe to the extent that it is > reasonable. This "reasonable" ends up ultimately being the level of safety > which costs less than the alternative of worker's compensation, fines, > etc. associated with unsafe workpalces. And Follow would propose all fines and workers compensation be eliminated since no one forced the workers to work in an unsafe environment. Reasonable is the right word. I believe asking smokers to smoke in private is a reasonable request to accomodate employee health. _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec 19:42:45 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 12:20 PM, O-PGManager wrote: > And Follow would propose all fines and workers compensation be eliminated > since > no one forced the workers to work in an unsafe environment. > > Reasonable is the right word. I believe asking smokers to smoke in private is > a > reasonable request to accomodate employee health. It's like seatbelt laws, why bother?  I mean if a man walks into a nuclear reactor that you own without protective equipment, whether or not the law required you to make him wear it, why should you be fined? The man doesn't understand what happens if he walks in there?  Is he unclear on the ramifications of his decision?  What the fuck did you have to do with his choice? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 12 Dec 23:45:57 From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... > It's like seatbelt laws, why bother? I agree, don't bother. But that isn't even remotely analogous. > I mean if a man walks into a nuclear > reactor that you own without protective equipment, whether or not the law > required you to make him wear it, why should you be fined? Nor is this. A more apt analogy is a factory owner using every inch of his private property for equipment and not leaving adequate routes for fire escape. Then a fire breaks out, an employee gets trapped and dies. Follow wants to say no one forced the dead worker to work in the factory, therefore the owner shouldn't be liable. _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 4:45 PM, O-PGManager wrote: > Nor is this. A more apt analogy is a factory owner using every inch of his > private property for equipment and not leaving adequate routes for fire > escape. > Then a fire breaks out, an employee gets trapped and dies. > > Follow wants to say no one forced the dead worker to work in the factory, > therefore the owner shouldn't be liable. Right, I'm glad you're stating my positions for me so I don't have to.  In fact, I don't see a need to participate in this conversation when you're perfectly content burning your own strawmen... Let me know if you need any input regarding my methods of thinking at any point.  I wouldn't want to disrupt your fantasy though. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:20:54 From: Peg Smith Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote: >> Follow wants to say no one forced the dead worker to work in the factory, >> therefore the owner shouldn't be liable. > >Right, I'm glad you're stating my positions for me so I don't have to.  In fact, >I don't see a need to participate in this conversation when you're perfectly >content burning your own strawmen... Wow. Follow, did you know that way back in the day factory owners locked the workroom during shifts so that employees couldn't leave? Do you suppose that many people took those jobs without knowing that if there was a fire there was no escape? Peg                     Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 5:20 PM, Peg Smith wrote: > Wow. > > Follow, did you know that way back in the day factory owners locked > the workroom during shifts so that employees couldn't leave? Do you > suppose that many people took those jobs without knowing that if there > was a fire there was no escape? > > Peg Yes, I knew that.  I don't see how it has any bearing on the discussion though.  In one case workers are in fact forced to remain in the area and in the other they aren't. I can't imagine anyone can't see the glaring differences between the situations... Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                       Date: 13 Dec From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... > In one case workers are in fact forced to remain in the area and in the other > they aren't. The sweatshop workers were absolutely not forced to keep a job in the sweatshop. _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                         Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 6:47 PM, O-PGManager wrote:  > The sweatshop workers were absolutely not forced to keep a job in the > sweatshop. Ya, we have a real big sweatshop problem here in the states... And those sweatshop owners of the millions and billions of them that we have are real keen to obey smoking ban laws when they aren't obeying any other laws. Real clever... Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                       Date: 12 Dec 2006 19:30:50 From: Peg Smith Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote: >> Follow, did you know that way back in the day factory owners locked >> the workroom during shifts so that employees couldn't leave? Do you >> suppose that many people took those jobs without knowing that if there >> was a fire there was no escape? >> >> Peg > >Yes, I knew that.  I don't see how it has any bearing on the discussion though.  >In one case workers are in fact forced to remain in the area and in the other >they aren't. > >I can't imagine anyone can't see the glaring differences between the >situations... It's bearing on the discussion is whether or not a private business can be run in any way the owner sees fit. Peg                         Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 6:30 PM, Peg Smith wrote: > It's bearing on the discussion is whether or not a private business > can be run in any way the owner sees fit. > > Peg Not in a way that denies the freedom of another.  For example, by locking a person in a room and disallowing them an exit, you are denying their liberty.  That's a prison.  If the door is open and they can go anytime they wish, what's the problem? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                           Date: 13 Dec From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 7:49 PM, Follow wrote: > > > > On Dec 12 2006 6:30 PM, Peg Smith wrote: > > > It's bearing on the discussion is whether or not a private business > > can be run in any way the owner sees fit. > > > > Peg > > Not in a way that denies the freedom of another.  For example, by locking a > person in a room and disallowing them an exit, you are denying their liberty.  > That's a prison.  If the door is open and they can go anytime they wish, > what's > the problem? There you go down that slippery slope again. BTW, did you hear about the French Revolution?  The American Revolution? The ones that established pretty clearly that the function of the government of a free country was protection of the rights of people, that the rights of the lords and other property owners no longer trump the rights of the serf. It's an interesting development in the role of government.  It's pretty recent but maybe you can find something about it in a newspaper or something if you stopped applying to those imaginary law schools that don't exist.   Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                             Date: 13 Dec 2006 07:13:08 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Gary Carson;1008422 Wrote: > On Dec 12 2006 7:49 PM, Follow wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12 2006 6:30 PM, Peg Smith wrote: > > > > > It's bearing on the discussion is whether or not a private > business > > > can be run in any way the owner sees fit. > > > > > > Peg > > > > Not in a way that denies the freedom of another.  For example, by > locking a > > person in a room and disallowing them an exit, you are denying their > liberty.  > > That's a prison.  If the door is open and they can go anytime they > wish, > > what's > > the problem? > > There you go down that slippery slope again. > > BTW, did you hear about the French Revolution?  The American > Revolution? The > ones that established pretty clearly that the function of the > government of a > free country was protection of the rights of people, that the rights of > the > lords and other property owners no longer trump the rights of the > serf. > > > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com Uh, the idea was for the "serf" to become a property owner and be protected from an overreaching government. The constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. The government isn't in the business of giving out rights. Citizens begin with rights, and the constitution prevents the government from taking those rights away. Smoking bans isn't the act of government giving people more rights, it's the government taking rights away. Private property owners have constitutional rights. The government's taking away their right to run their private business as they see fit, is eroding their property rights. These business people aren't "lords" as you're calling them, the ARE "the people". That's the funny thing about liberals, they really think that property owners and free enterprise is evil, and that they're (businesses) not "the people". Liberals actually think that it's the government's constitutional duty to attack the successful on behalf of the deadbeats and malcontents, the rebellious, the anti American, the anti religious (i.e., the liberal core base) I have news for you, the business/property owners ARE "the people"; the successful ones. Again, we get double talk from Gary Carson when he's losing an argument. You're comparing a "ruling class" society with...well, it's difficult to figure out exactly what you're talking about. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                               Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:48:00 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Travel wrote: ... > Smoking bans isn't the act of government giving people more rights, > it's the government taking rights away. On the contrary, smoking bans are protecting the rights of the people to have their air in public places not fouled by an addicted minority. Just like trespassing laws aren't taking away the rights of squatters, but protecting the rights of property owners. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                 Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:39:14 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Joe Long;1009090 Wrote: > Travel wrote: > .... > > Smoking bans isn't the act of government giving people more rights, > > it's the government taking rights away. > > On the contrary, smoking bans are protecting the rights of the people > to > have their air in public places not fouled by an addicted minority. > Just like trespassing laws aren't taking away the rights of squatters, > but protecting the rights of property owners. > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range Oh, let me destroy another of your, endless and ridiculous analogies. Restaurant an bar owners are property owners, you idiot. Anti smoking is is taking away their rights to provide accommodate their customers' using a legal product which has never been proven to be harmful as second hand smoke. Those are the facts, and we need a good Supreme Court decision to put this madness and private property attack to an end. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                                   Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:36:29 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Travel wrote: > Joe Long;1009090 Wrote: >> Travel wrote: >> .... >>> Smoking bans isn't the act of government giving people more rights, >>> it's the government taking rights away. >> On the contrary, smoking bans are protecting the rights of the people >> to >> have their air in public places not fouled by an addicted minority. >> Just like trespassing laws aren't taking away the rights of squatters, >> but protecting the rights of property owners. >> >> >> -- >> Joe Long aka ChipRider >> Somewhere on the Range > > > Oh, let me destroy another of your, endless and ridiculous analogies. > > Restaurant an bar owners are property owners, you idiot. Anti smoking > is is taking away their rights to provide accommodate their customers' > using a legal product It is a legal product, but the fact that a product is legal does not necessarily mean that it's legal to use everywhere. When a smoking ban is passed into law, then smoking tobacco is no longer legal in certain places, even places that are privately owned if they serve the public. As I pointed out, you can characterize laws against trespassing as violating my right to go where I please, when they are actually protecting the rights of the owners of the land. Smoking bans impose limits on the property owners who own the businesses, while protecting the rights of their patrons. Most laws do that (limits someone's right in order to protect someone else). Rights do not exist in a vacuum, and are not absolute as long as there is more than one person alive in the world. > which has never been proven to be harmful as > second hand smoke. More denial. It has been proven to be harmful, beyond a reasonable doubt. You sound like all those folks 50 years ago claiming that smoking had never been proven to be harmful. > Those are the facts, and we need a good Supreme Court decision to put > this madness and private property attack to an end. Get your facts right. And the courts have long since spoken on such matters, including the Supreme Court. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                     Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:14:20 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Joe Long;1009743 Wrote: > Travel wrote: > > Joe Long;1009090 Wrote: > >> Travel wrote: > >> .... > >>> Smoking bans isn't the act of government giving people more > rights, > >>> it's the government taking rights away. > >> On the contrary, smoking bans are protecting the rights of the > people > >> to > >> have their air in public places not fouled by an addicted minority. > >> Just like trespassing laws aren't taking away the rights of > squatters, > >> but protecting the rights of property owners. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Joe Long aka ChipRider > >> Somewhere on the Range > > > > > > Oh, let me destroy another of your, endless and ridiculous > analogies. > > > > Restaurant an bar owners are property owners, you idiot. Anti > smoking > > is is taking away their rights to provide accommodate their > customers' > > using a legal product > > It is a legal product, but the fact that a product is legal does not > necessarily mean that it's legal to use everywhere. When a smoking > ban > is passed into law, then smoking tobacco is no longer legal in certain > places, even places that are privately owned if they serve the public. > > As I pointed out, you can characterize laws against trespassing as > violating my right to go where I please, when they are actually > protecting the rights of the owners of the land. Smoking bans impose > limits on the property owners who own the businesses, while protecting > the rights of their patrons. Most laws do that (limits someone's > right > in order to protect someone else). Rights do not exist in a vacuum, > and > are not absolute as long as there is more than one person alive in the > world. > > > which has never been proven to be harmful as > > second hand smoke. > > More denial. It has been proven to be harmful, beyond a reasonable > doubt. > > You're in denial, it's never been proven, and that's a fact. > > Also, it's it's never been proven because "second hand smoke" is not > harmful DUH! > > > > You sound like all those folks 50 years ago claiming that > smoking had never been proven to be harmful. > > > Those are the facts, and we need a good Supreme Court decision to > put > > this madness and private property attack to an end. > > "Get your facts right. And the courts have long since spoken on such > matters, including the Supreme Court." > > There's a case now being heard in Vegas on constitutional issues; > you're in denial, get your facts straight. > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range Why don't you just save and paste up the same old delusional drivel you type over and over again; of which you've been proven wrong by the facts. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                                       Date: 18 Dec 2006 02:13:06 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Travel wrote: > Why don't you just save and paste up the same old delusional drivel you > type over and over again; of which you've been proven wrong by the > facts. IOW, you cannot refute it. You wouldn't know a fact on this matter if it was hand-delivered from a Brinks truck. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                 Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:29:12 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Joe Long;1009090 Wrote: > Travel wrote: > .... > > Smoking bans isn't the act of government giving people more rights, > > it's the government taking rights away. > > On the contrary, smoking bans are protecting the rights of the people > to > have their air in public places not fouled by an addicted minority. > Just like trespassing laws aren't taking away the rights of squatters, > but protecting the rights of property owners. > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range No, it's exactly as I said it is. Next... -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                                   Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:29:43 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Travel wrote: > Joe Long;1009090 Wrote: >> Travel wrote: >> .... >>> Smoking bans isn't the act of government giving people more rights, >>> it's the government taking rights away. >> On the contrary, smoking bans are protecting the rights of the people >> to >> have their air in public places not fouled by an addicted minority. >> Just like trespassing laws aren't taking away the rights of squatters, >> but protecting the rights of property owners. >> >> >> -- >> Joe Long aka ChipRider >> Somewhere on the Range > > > No, it's exactly as I said it is. > > Next... Oh, now THAT's a great retort. What's next, "Nyah nyah nyah?" -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                     Date: 16 Dec 2006 14:59:59 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Joe Long;1009742 Wrote: > Travel wrote: > > Joe Long;1009090 Wrote: > >> Travel wrote: > >> .... > >>> Smoking bans isn't the act of government giving people more > rights, > >>> it's the government taking rights away. > >> On the contrary, smoking bans are protecting the rights of the > people > >> to > >> have their air in public places not fouled by an addicted minority. > >> Just like trespassing laws aren't taking away the rights of > squatters, > >> but protecting the rights of property owners. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Joe Long aka ChipRider > >> Somewhere on the Range > > > > > > No, it's exactly as I said it is. > > > > Next... > > Oh, now THAT's a great retort. What's next, "Nyah nyah nyah?" > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range It's all that's necessary. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                                       Date: 18 Dec 2006 02:11:18 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Travel wrote: > Joe Long;1009742 Wrote: >> Travel wrote: >>> No, it's exactly as I said it is. >>> >>> Next... >> Oh, now THAT's a great retort. What's next, "Nyah nyah nyah?" >> >> >> -- >> Joe Long aka ChipRider >> Somewhere on the Range > > > It's all that's necessary. It's all that's necessary for you, because your minds made up, closed, and nailed shut. No evidence or logic will have any effect, therefore to you none is necessary. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                         Date: 18 Dec 18:00:51 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 18 2006 2:12 AM, Joe Long wrote: > > It's all that's necessary for you, because your minds made up, closed, > and nailed shut. No evidence or logic will have any effect, therefore > to you none is necessary. > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range I can't believe you're still at this.  But if you'd like to provide me with evidence and I'll gladly review it. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                                           Date: 18 Dec 2006 13:25:06 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 18 2006 2:12 AM, Joe Long wrote: > >> It's all that's necessary for you, because your minds made up, closed, >> and nailed shut. No evidence or logic will have any effect, therefore >> to you none is necessary. >> >> >> -- >> Joe Long aka ChipRider >> Somewhere on the Range > > I can't believe you're still at this. But if you'd like to provide me with > evidence and I'll gladly review it. Me? I've only jumped in a few times, and you've been holding forth all the time. Google is your friend. But I know that you will not accept any evidence that doesn't support what you want to believe. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                             Date: 18 Dec 21:41:22 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 18 2006 1:26 PM, Joe Long wrote: > Me? I've only jumped in a few times, and you've been holding forth all > the time. > > Google is your friend. But I know that you will not accept any evidence > that doesn't support what you want to believe. > > > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range So if I want to find your evidence, I have to google it myself and make your case for you.  If I draw a different conclusion based on the evidence I find, I'm clearly wrong and should try again until I'm less stupid. Damn, I wonder why I didn't think of this clearly winning strategy to debating a topic.  You fucking rule! Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                                               Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:15:40 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 18 2006 1:26 PM, Joe Long wrote: > >> Me? I've only jumped in a few times, and you've been holding forth all >> the time. >> >> Google is your friend. But I know that you will not accept any evidence >> that doesn't support what you want to believe. >> >> -- >> Joe Long aka ChipRider >> Somewhere on the Range > > So if I want to find your evidence, I have to google it myself and make your > case for you. If I draw a different conclusion based on the evidence I find, > I'm clearly wrong and should try again until I'm less stupid. Close. There is a TON of evidence and links have been provided on these discussions time and time again. I'm not going to look the stuff up again for someone as in denial as you. > Damn, I wonder why I didn't think of this clearly winning strategy to debating a > topic. You fucking rule! Thank you. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                                 Date: 19 Dec 17:32:49 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 18 2006 8:16 PM, Joe Long wrote: > Close. There is a TON of evidence and links have been provided on these > discussions time and time again. I'm not going to look the stuff up > again for someone as in denial as you. Wow, then it shouldn't be hard to post one link that was already posted (and not refuted) in the thread.  To the best of my recollection, I have posted the only links. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                             Date: 13 Dec 16:50:28 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 8:39 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > There you go down that slippery slope again. > > BTW, did you hear about the French Revolution?  The American Revolution? The > ones that established pretty clearly that the function of the government of a > free country was protection of the rights of people, that the rights of the > lords and other property owners no longer trump the rights of the serf. > > It's an interesting development in the role of government.  It's pretty recent > but maybe you can find something about it in a newspaper or something if you > stopped applying to those imaginary law schools that don't exist. > > >   > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com Nice, very hostile.  I wonder exactly what it is you're angry with me about.  Is that how you treat anyone who disagrees with your method of thinking?  Or just about hot buttons that you can't seem to provide any evidence for, but feel that repeatedly asserting you're right should be enough? If you feel these laws shouldn't be discussed in a logical manner, then maybe you should learn what our republic is about.  Maybe you can figure out how things are supposed to work in this country before giving me lessons and pointing me in the direction of newspapers about the revolution.  ;) Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                         Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:34:04 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Peg Smith wrote: > It's bearing on the discussion is whether or not a private business > can be run in any way the owner sees fit. > > Peg And, of course, it cannot. There has never been any society in the history of the world where they could. As soon as you open your doors to the public you come under government regulation in a myriad of ways. Allowing or prohibiting smoking is just one of them. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                   Date: 13 Dec From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Yes or No: Should a factory owner be mandated by the government to provide adequate fire escape routes and non-flammable worksuits in his private factory? Or should he be under no obligation to do so, since no one is forcing the workers to work there? Yes or No: Should a bar owner be mandated by the government to provide a working environment with clean air to his employees? Or should he be under no obligation to do so, since no one is forcing the workers to work there? _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 5:10 PM, O-PGManager wrote: > > Yes or No: > > Should a factory owner be mandated by the government to provide adequate fire > escape routes and non-flammable worksuits in his private factory? > > Or should he be under no obligation to do so, since no one is forcing the > workers to work there? Yes or No: Does this have anything to do with banning smoking in private clubs? > Yes or No: > > Should a bar owner be mandated by the government to provide a working > environment with clean air to his employees? > > Or should he be under no obligation to do so, since no one is forcing the > workers to work there? No, and your rhetorical question is right on the money. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com                       Date: 13 Dec From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 8:16 PM, Follow wrote: > > > > On Dec 12 2006 5:10 PM, O-PGManager wrote: > > > > > Yes or No: > > > > Should a factory owner be mandated by the government to provide adequate > > fire > > escape routes and non-flammable worksuits in his private factory? > > > > Or should he be under no obligation to do so, since no one is forcing the > > workers to work there? > > Yes or No: > > Does this have anything to do with banning smoking in private clubs? > Absolutely. You are maintaining a private business owner has no obligations for worker safety since the free market allows an employee to choose a different workplace. Are you not? _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                         Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 6:45 PM, O-PGManager wrote:  > Absolutely. You are maintaining a private business owner has no obligations > for > worker safety since the free market allows an employee to choose a different > workplace. > > Are you not? Actually, when you close the doors and lock them, keeping a person in the place of business, you are by definition not allowing them to choose a different workplace, are you not? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                           Date: 13 Dec From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Ok you agree a factory owner shouldn't lock his employees inside. We've found some common ground. Now answer a question more analogous to government forcing a bar owner to clean up the air for his workers... Yes or No: Should a factory owner be mandated by the government to provide adequate fire escape routes and non-flammable worksuits in his private factory? Or should he be under no obligation to do so, since no one is forcing the workers to work there? _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                             Date: 13 Dec 16:53:56 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 13 2006 1:20 AM, O-PGManager wrote: > Ok you agree a factory owner shouldn't lock his employees inside. We've found > some common ground. Now answer a question more analogous to government > forcing > a bar owner to clean up the air for his workers... > > > Yes or No: > > Should a factory owner be mandated by the government to provide adequate fire > escape routes and non-flammable worksuits in his private factory? > > Or should he be under no obligation to do so, since no one is forcing the > workers to work there? Is there a happy medium between mandated and "under no obligation?"  Certainly the owner of any business is responsible in some way for those in it, but a fire that could cause immediate death is a far cry from a cigarette.  Or do you see no difference between these two events?  Should business owners until this point who have permitted smoking in their buildings be tried for murder?  Criminal negligence at least?  By your logic, it seems they should. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                               Date: 13 Dec 19:11:02 From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... > Is there a happy medium between mandated and "under no obligation?"  Not that I can think of. I'm listening if you can. Certainly > the owner of any business is responsible in some way for those in it And you call yourself a libertarian! Who's forcing a worker to work in a factory with no clear fire escape? Who's forcing a worker to bartend and breathe in polluted air for 10 hours a day? Why should an owner be mandated to take any responsibility on his private property when no one is forced to enter the premises? > Should business owners until this > point > who have permitted smoking in their buildings be tried for murder?  Criminal > negligence at least?  Of course not. They've been operating within the law that defines criminal negligence. If they violate the law after a ban, then the answer is yes. _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                                 Date: 13 Dec 19:21:13 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 13 2006 12:11 PM, O-PGManager wrote:  > Of course not. They've been operating within the law that defines criminal > negligence. If they violate the law after a ban, then the answer is yes. Right, so you're saying a business owner permitting smoking in his establishment should face the same penalties as one who locks the doors on his employees resulting in 50+ deaths in a fire. I'd like you to say that out loud a few times and let it sink in. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                                   Date: 13 Dec 22:36:32 From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 13 2006 1:21 PM, Follow wrote: > . > > Right, so you're saying a business owner permitting smoking in his > establishment > should face the same penalties as one who locks the doors on his employees > resulting in 50+ deaths in a fire. > > I'd like you to say that out loud a few times and let it sink in. > I thought you were just really stupid, but I'll have to apologize.  Now I realize you're a troll, because nobody can actually be this stupid. Just because running a stop sign and murder are both illegal doesn't mean they carry the same penalties. But, of course you already knew that. Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                                     Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:53:41 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Gary Carson wrote: ... > Just because running a stop sign and murder are both illegal doesn't mean they > carry the same penalties. Hmmm ... interesting thought ... a business owner who allows smoking in his establishment isn't guilty of murder, but he may be guilty of manslaughter. Some of his patrons and/or employees may die younger due to the smoke in the air. In a large establishment with many employees and customers, that's a virtual certainty. I wonder how many people are doomed to a premature death each year in Black Hawk, Colorado, alone due to the smoke in the casinos? -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                       Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:00:42 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Joe Long;1009095 Wrote: > Gary Carson wrote: > > .... > > Just because running a stop sign and murder are both illegal doesn't > mean they > > carry the same penalties. > > Hmmm ... interesting thought ... a business owner who allows smoking > in > his establishment isn't guilty of murder, but he may be guilty of > manslaughter. Some of his patrons and/or employees may die younger > due > to the smoke in the air. In a large establishment with many employees > and customers, that's a virtual certainty. > > I wonder how many people are doomed to a premature death each year in > Black Hawk, Colorado, alone due to the smoke in the casinos? > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range Lol! "doomed to a premature death" you sick fuck. Maybe you'll die a premature death from terminal anal retention; that's more likely. Smoking pre dates everyone currently on the planet and not a single person has ever had a health problem from so called second hand. smoke. You're so far out you're not worth addressing. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                                         Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:39:24 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Travel wrote: ... > Smoking pre dates everyone currently on the planet and not a single > person has ever had a health problem from so called second hand. > smoke. With that short paragraph you demonstrate just how deeply in denial you really are. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." > You're so far out you're not worth addressing. So why do you continue to do so? -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                                     Date: 13 Dec 22:54:37 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 13 2006 3:36 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > I thought you were just really stupid, but I'll have to apologize.  Now I > realize you're a troll, because nobody can actually be this stupid. > > Just because running a stop sign and murder are both illegal doesn't mean they > carry the same penalties. > > But, of course you already knew that. > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com/ Hey asshat, maybe if you read what I was replying to, you would realize that he said EXACTLY what I said he did, I was just restating it.  How does a writer become illiterate? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                                   Date: 14 Dec From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... yawn, im done here. enjoy your lung cancer. _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 11:57 PM, O-PGManager wrote: > Then don't bring it up in your argument against smoking bans. If you do, > expect > an avalanche crushing your ridiculous implication that the dangers of second > hand smoke are mythical. The only point I was trying to make was that the studies have proven nothing and they're not as iron-clad as the anti-smoking crowd makes them out to be.  Anything beyond that point is a strawman.   > Despite your best wishes, we don't live in a free market utopia. Many people > are constrained to certain jobs for a variety of reasons: economic, > educational, > regional, real or perceived. Right, and that means we should cater to people's perceived "limitations" because they can't possibly go to a smoke free environment to work. > I'm not allowed to run a factory devoid of safety equipment and standards > under > the mantra of "no one is being forced to work in my unsafe factory". The > reason > your "any worker can leave an unsafe work environment" argument doesn't hold > up > is because it puts the responsibility of auditing and inspecting a workplace's > safety on them. >  > As a society, we decided long ago that worker should expect his employer to > provide as safe a workplace as possible for him. > > Maybe you don't agree with having any workplace safety standards, at least > you'd > be consistent. While we're at it, we can throw away all health regulations as > well, and let the free market weed out the cooks who don't wash their hands. > > You can advocate for all of this, but you'll be in the minority. > > There are 400 billion dollars in the DOD budget that fly in the face of your > assertion that a front line soldier doesn't have his risks mitigated. Even > so, > in dangerous jobs like highrise construction or military service the risks are > clearly ennumerated and hazard pay is provided. I'd hear an argument we could > do the same for bartenders, the big difference though is that unlike > construction and military service, our country could get along just fine with > smokers smoking only in private places. How is limiting a person's property rights the same as making them wear a helmet?  It's not like an employer is banning helmets on his site nor is he forced to, the same with smoking.  The employer or owner chooses which way they prefer and the employees can choose to work there.  Do you think an employee would have a problem with there not being a mandatory helmet worn in their workplace?  I don't think so.  They might wear it on their own, but I'm sure they would be relieved if they didn't HAVE to wear it. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 12 Dec 19:17:28 From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... > How is limiting a person's property rights the same as making them wear a > helmet?  A factory owner has to do a lot more than provide helmets. Meeting safety and environmental regulations can cost a lot of money. I suppose a law against dumping chemicals into my private lake impinges on my property rights? Ask yourself how far you're prepared to go under the mantra of "the government may never insert itself into private business". _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:54:15 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... O-PGManager wrote: >> How is limiting a person's property rights the same as making them wear a >> helmet? > > A factory owner has to do a lot more than provide helmets. Meeting safety and > environmental regulations can cost a lot of money. I suppose a law against > dumping chemicals into my private lake impinges on my property rights? > > Ask yourself how far you're prepared to go under the mantra of "the government > may never insert itself into private business". Indeed. It's like saying that if a stream runs through my property, it is MY property and MY stream so I have a right to dump anything into it that I wish. And if the people downstream don't like it, they can move.             Date: 12 Dec 19:49:21 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 12:17 PM, O-PGManager wrote: > A factory owner has to do a lot more than provide helmets. Meeting safety and > environmental regulations can cost a lot of money. I suppose a law against > dumping chemicals into my private lake impinges on my property rights? > > Ask yourself how far you're prepared to go under the mantra of "the government > may never insert itself into private business". I've thought about it quite clearly.  A law against dumping toxic chemicals into your privately owned lake should be illegal because it harms your property without your express consent.  However, it should be quite legal for you to accept that waste and sign a contract to circumvent the law should both you and your dumping friend agree that the waste should go there.  Maybe for a level of compensation?  No one else has to come to your lake. I've thought about property rights and liberty for a great deal of time and tried to find the balance you think is possible.  The only balance possible is to allow everyone their liberty and stop infringing on it.  This isn't completely original thinking, it's just not currently popular thinking, but was exactly what the popular thinking was at the foundation of this country.  For more recent takes on liberty, look up Andrew Gallambos' writings, such as "Sic Itur Ad Astra." Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 12 Dec 23:53:14 From: O-PGManager Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... >However, it should be quite legal for you to > accept that waste and sign a contract to circumvent the law should both you > and > your dumping friend agree that the waste should go there.  Maybe for a level > of > compensation?  No one else has to come to your lake. Wrong. There is no such thing as a completely isolated private lake. If you fuck up that lake, you're fucking up the ecology god knows how far away. Now we've lost sight of the original discussion, but ask yourself just how much you're willing to twist and turn to defend your assertion that government can never enter the domain of private property. I want to turn my 4000 acres of Pennsylvania woodland into a chemical dump when I retire to Florida. You see nothing wrong with this. _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 4:53 PM, O-PGManager wrote: > Wrong. There is no such thing as a completely isolated private lake. If you > fuck up that lake, you're fucking up the ecology god knows how far away. Actually, the Salt Lake is completely isolated...  What does the ecology of lakes have to do with smoking bans anyway? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 12 Dec 21:11:05 From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I think somebody told Follow that libetarian party meetings would be a good place to meet girls, but they forgot to warn him about drinking the kool-aide. On Dec 12 2006 1:49 PM, Follow wrote: > > > > On Dec 12 2006 12:17 PM, O-PGManager wrote: > > > A factory owner has to do a lot more than provide helmets. Meeting safety > > and > > environmental regulations can cost a lot of money. I suppose a law against > > dumping chemicals into my private lake impinges on my property rights? > > > > Ask yourself how far you're prepared to go under the mantra of "the > > government > > may never insert itself into private business". > > I've thought about it quite clearly.  A law against dumping toxic chemicals > into > your privately owned lake should be illegal because it harms your property > without your express consent.  However, it should be quite legal for you to > accept that waste and sign a contract to circumvent the law should both you > and > your dumping friend agree that the waste should go there.  Maybe for a level > of > compensation?  No one else has to come to your lake. > > I've thought about property rights and liberty for a great deal of time and > tried to find the balance you think is possible.  The only balance possible is > to allow everyone their liberty and stop infringing on it.  This isn't > completely original thinking, it's just not currently popular thinking, but > was > exactly what the popular thinking was at the foundation of this country.  For > more recent takes on liberty, look up Andrew Gallambos' writings, such as "Sic > Itur Ad Astra." > > > > > Follow  :) Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 12 Dec 21:20:27 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 2:11 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > I think somebody told Follow that libetarian party meetings would be a good > place to meet girls, but they forgot to warn him about drinking the kool-aide. What's really hillarious about this paragraph is that a friend of mine *did* suggest going to Libertarian party meetings to meet girls after a breakup I had.  I told her I wanted to meet someone rational for once (I was a Libertarian long before I went to a party meeting, I just didn't go to the meetings), and she suggested I go to the Libertarian meeting.  She was horribly wrong of course since everyone there was either male, or 3 times my age... But it is funny that you said it.  ;) Follow  :) "I was down the Libertarian kool-aid long before I went to the meetings" _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 12 Dec From: comfail Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... First, let me say that I think all drugs should be legal, at the very least in the privacy of your own home. I've done many of them in my life and don't see much difference between most of them and booze. Now let me tell you why I have no sympathy for "smokers". They are, on the whole, (that means not all, just most)  the rudest, filthiest drug users I have ever known. For proof, and just one example of many, look at the ground when you stop at a red light at any intersection in America- especially getting off a freeway.  To a smoker, the world really is their ashtray and most of them see nothing wrong with tossing a cigarette out of a car, or just dropping it on the ground when finished. To a smoker, they are being responsible if they step on it and put it out before they walk away. Smokers see nothing wrong with standing at the entrance of a building puffing away, while forcing non-smokers to walk through a cloud of smoke to get where they are going. Then have the stones to stand there and expect sympathy from those same people at the voting booth. I am a libertarian who is the equivalent to a vegetarian who sneaks a steak once in a while. The only time I vote against my libertarian value system is when it comes to smokers. They annoy me with their ill-mannerisms, and I pay them back at the voting booth. Quit throwing your drug habit in my face and I'll quit voting against it. I think I represent most non-smokers in this opinion. What's the difference between a drug you have to do to feel good, and one you have to do not to feel bad? Nothing. On Dec 11 2006 2:13 PM, Follow wrote: > I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on > this... > > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government.  I agree > with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to > choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room.  What's funny is that most > smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are exactly > the opposite. > > As it stands without bans on smoking in private establishments such as bars > and > restaurants; we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments > and owners have the choice of making it one or the other.  There is no law on > the books, nor has there ever been a law requiring an establishment to have a > smoking area available.  But now, we are talking about a law forbidding a > smoking area and somehow decide that this is a vote for more liberty?  I don't > think so. > > I find it curious that I see "Republicans" like Irish Mike on this topic > sounding off on a smoking ban.  Aren't "Republicans" supposed to be interested > in property rights and the soveriegnty of that ownership?  Are you only a > "Republican" when it doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities?  It's quite > simple, you don't like being around smokers, you don't enter a restaurant or > bar > which permits smoking and take your grievance to the owner(s) of said > establishment.  I thought only Democrats passed frivolous laws to suit their > own > comfort. > > Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and > bar smoking ban took effect.  The loophole was that these "clubs" required > membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant > or bar and were not impacted by the law.  Nearly every bar in Utah and some > restaurants turned into "private clubs."  There were however others that did > not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a > choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking > establishment.  > How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices.  You want to smoke, > here > is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. > > That changed this year when legislators decided that smoking clubs were still > evil and possibly breaking god's law, and passed more legislation disallowing > even the private clubs from allowing smoking.  Now we have no more choice, no > smoking and non-smoking clubs, nothing, just a bunch of "smoke-free" > everythings > with a group of people with the audacity to say they're on the side of > "freedom."  I would venture so far as to say they are fighters for "comfort" > but > definitely a little bit on the facist side as far as "freedom" is concerned. > > Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because > of > this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will.  There is a > bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to > drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do.  Soon (the law hasn't > taken > effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope > of > continued competition.  It's over for them. > > Besides all of the property concerns, most of the anti-smoking crowd should > already be well aware of how bunk their "evidence" is regarding second hand > smoke.  Every study up until recently has relied on the EPA study entitled > "EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other > Disorders."  Including the studies by WHO and the BMA which titled their > studies > with very scary names, and discussed how evil the dangers of second hand smoke > were.  They also believed that since their study was so long and filled with > pointless graphs and ridiculous hyperbole and posturing, that no one would > notice little lines like these in the middle of the report: > > "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to > environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders > and > before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No > significant > associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, > 1966-72, > 1973-85, and 1973-98. > > This was a 30 year study, the longest and most tedious ever performed.  This > is > also a study by the BMA who, by their own words say things like this:  > > "The BMA has long supported legislation to ban smoking in public places as a > necessary step in combating the dangers of second-hand smoke to non-smokers. > Some progress has been made."  > > These guys are an anti-smoking lobby group, who conducted the longest study on > second hand smoke EVER performed, and they found "NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION" > but still they persist in trying to ban smoking and putting out studies with > information inside them saying there is no significant association, but > titling > them with names like: "second-hand smoke represents a substantial public > health > hazard." > > The EPA study (which all other secondhand smoke studies are based on) was > tossed > out by not only Judge William Osteen > (http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm), but also tossed > out > by the CRS (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm) Congressional > Research Service for those who aren't aware.  Both Judge Osteen and the CRS > called the EPA study "unscientific" and described their data as "cherry > picked." > > So voting for or supporting legislation that bans smoking in private > businesses > in America is not a vote for freedom, nor a vote for health.  It is at best a > vote for comfort and a vote to callously disregard the comfort and freedom of > others. > > > > > Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 5:36 PM, comfail wrote: > First, let me say that I think all drugs should be legal, at the very least in > the privacy of your own home. I've done many of them in my life and don't see > much difference between most of them and booze. > > Now let me tell you why I have no sympathy for "smokers". They are, on the > whole, (that means not all, just most)  the rudest, filthiest drug users I > have > ever known. For proof, and just one example of many, look at the ground when > you > stop at a red light at any intersection in America- especially getting off a > freeway.  To a smoker, the world really is their ashtray and most of them see > nothing wrong with tossing a cigarette out of a car, or just dropping it on > the > ground when finished. To a smoker, they are being responsible if they step on > it > and put it out before they walk away. > > Smokers see nothing wrong with standing at the entrance of a building puffing > away, while forcing non-smokers to walk through a cloud of smoke to get where > they are going. Then have the stones to stand there and expect sympathy from > those same people at the voting booth. > > I am a libertarian who is the equivalent to a vegetarian who sneaks a steak > once > in a while. The only time I vote against my libertarian value system is when > it > comes to smokers. They annoy me with their ill-mannerisms, and I pay them back > at the voting booth. Quit throwing your drug habit in my face and I'll quit > voting against it. I think I represent most non-smokers in this opinion. > > What's the difference between a drug you have to do to feel good, and one you > have to do not to feel bad? Nothing. Wow, you call yourself a Libertarian?  Are you kidding?  Your argument above holds about as much water as white slavery and crime as a result of prostitution, therefore prostitution should be illegal.  Or that because child abuse and exploitation is part of some polygamy, therefore polygamy should be illegal.  Or that drugs cause violence at times and therefore they should be illegal.  The answer here is the same as everything else.  We have laws against littering, they simply need to be enforced. In America, we seem to punish the symptom of a problem rather than get to the actual root of the problem to combat it.  We have laws against littering, and if you were to allow smokers to smoke indoors and complain to the owners to isolate them more than they are, you would be fine.  Your smoker wouldn't be next to the door causing a cloud of smoke in your path, and they would be isolated at establishments where they are allowed. Generally Libertarians are a whole lot more reasonable about their arguments for or against laws than you were with your reply.  I'm a Libertarian myself, on ALL issues. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec From: comfail Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 4:44 PM, Follow wrote: > > > > On Dec 11 2006 5:36 PM, comfail wrote: > > > First, let me say that I think all drugs should be legal, at the very least > > in > > the privacy of your own home. I've done many of them in my life and don't > > see > > much difference between most of them and booze. > > > > Now let me tell you why I have no sympathy for "smokers". They are, on the > > whole, (that means not all, just most)  the rudest, filthiest drug users I > > have > > ever known. For proof, and just one example of many, look at the ground when > > you > > stop at a red light at any intersection in America- especially getting off a > > freeway.  To a smoker, the world really is their ashtray and most of them > > see > > nothing wrong with tossing a cigarette out of a car, or just dropping it on > > the > > ground when finished. To a smoker, they are being responsible if they step > > on > > it > > and put it out before they walk away. > > > > Smokers see nothing wrong with standing at the entrance of a building > > puffing > > away, while forcing non-smokers to walk through a cloud of smoke to get > > where > > they are going. Then have the stones to stand there and expect sympathy from > > those same people at the voting booth. > > > > I am a libertarian who is the equivalent to a vegetarian who sneaks a steak > > once > > in a while. The only time I vote against my libertarian value system is when > > it > > comes to smokers. They annoy me with their ill-mannerisms, and I pay them > > back > > at the voting booth. Quit throwing your drug habit in my face and I'll quit > > voting against it. I think I represent most non-smokers in this opinion. > > > > What's the difference between a drug you have to do to feel good, and one > > you > > have to do not to feel bad? Nothing. > > Wow, you call yourself a Libertarian?  Are you kidding?  Your argument above > holds about as much water as white slavery and crime as a result of > prostitution, therefore prostitution should be illegal.  Or that because child > abuse and exploitation is part of some polygamy, therefore polygamy should be > illegal.  Or that drugs cause violence at times and therefore they should be > illegal.  The answer here is the same as everything else.  We have laws > against > littering, they simply need to be enforced. > > In America, we seem to punish the symptom of a problem rather than get to the > actual root of the problem to combat it.  We have laws against littering, and > if > you were to allow smokers to smoke indoors and complain to the owners to > isolate > them more than they are, you would be fine.  Your smoker wouldn't be next to > the > door causing a cloud of smoke in your path, and they would be isolated at > establishments where they are allowed. > > Generally Libertarians are a whole lot more reasonable about their arguments > for > or against laws than you were with your reply.  I'm a Libertarian myself, on > ALL > issues. > > Read the post again. I said that I think all drugs should be legal, including > yours. I said that I just like to fuck with smokers because they are so > rude. That is all. The point is that many non-smokers do, and if you want to > stop that, perhaps smokers need to clean up their acts. That is all. I > wasn't looking for your approval. Just pointing out the reality of how many > non-smokers view smokers. > > > Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 8:53 PM, comfail wrote: > Read the post again. I said that I think all drugs should be legal, > including > yours. I said that I just like to fuck with smokers because they are > so rude. That is all. The point is that many non-smokers do, and if > you want to stop that, perhaps smokers need to clean up their acts. > That is all. I wasn't looking for your approval. Just pointing out the > reality of how many non-smokers view smokers. Oh I see, using government power to exact a personal vendetta.  That's totally Libertarian, my fault. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 11 Dec 2006 16:13:11 From: ACS Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... It's funny how people think that the right to smoke is some sort of God given human liberty. This debate and the frivolous tobacco lawsuits ("yes, my testimony I did not realize that smoking was dangerous"), seems to show that smokers love to play the victim card. What is so hard about not smoking inside? On Dec 11 2006 6:13 PM, Follow wrote: > I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on > this... > > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government.  I agree > with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to > choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room.  What's funny is that most > smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are exactly > the opposite. > > As it stands without bans on smoking in private establishments such as bars and > restaurants; we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments > and owners have the choice of making it one or the other.  There is no law on > the books, nor has there ever been a law requiring an establishment to have a > smoking area available.  But now, we are talking about a law forbidding a > smoking area and somehow decide that this is a vote for more liberty?  I don't > think so. > > I find it curious that I see "Republicans" like Irish Mike on this topic > sounding off on a smoking ban.  Aren't "Republicans" supposed to be interested > in property rights and the soveriegnty of that ownership?  Are you only a > "Republican" when it doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities?  It's quite > simple, you don't like being around smokers, you don't enter a restaurant or bar > which permits smoking and take your grievance to the owner(s) of said > establishment.  I thought only Democrats passed frivolous laws to suit their own > comfort. > > Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and > bar smoking ban took effect.  The loophole was that these "clubs" required > membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant > or bar and were not impacted by the law.  Nearly every bar in Utah and some > restaurants turned into "private clubs."  There were however others that did > not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a > choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking establishment.  > How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices.  You want to smoke, here > is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. > > That changed this year when legislators decided that smoking clubs were still > evil and possibly breaking god's law, and passed more legislation disallowing > even the private clubs from allowing smoking.  Now we have no more choice, no > smoking and non-smoking clubs, nothing, just a bunch of "smoke-free" everythings > with a group of people with the audacity to say they're on the side of > "freedom."  I would venture so far as to say they are fighters for "comfort" but > definitely a little bit on the facist side as far as "freedom" is concerned. > > Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because of > this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will.  There is a > bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to > drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do.  Soon (the law hasn't taken > effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of > continued competition.  It's over for them. > > Besides all of the property concerns, most of the anti-smoking crowd should > already be well aware of how bunk their "evidence" is regarding second hand > smoke.  Every study up until recently has relied on the EPA study entitled > "EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other > Disorders."  Including the studies by WHO and the BMA which titled their studies > with very scary names, and discussed how evil the dangers of second hand smoke > were.  They also believed that since their study was so long and filled with > pointless graphs and ridiculous hyperbole and posturing, that no one would > notice little lines like these in the middle of the report: > > "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to > environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and > before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant > associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, > 1973-85, and 1973-98. > > This was a 30 year study, the longest and most tedious ever performed.  This is > also a study by the BMA who, by their own words say things like this:  > > "The BMA has long supported legislation to ban smoking in public places as a > necessary step in combating the dangers of second-hand smoke to non-smokers. > Some progress has been made."  > > These guys are an anti-smoking lobby group, who conducted the longest study on > second hand smoke EVER performed, and they found "NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION" > but still they persist in trying to ban smoking and putting out studies with > information inside them saying there is no significant association, but titling > them with names like: "second-hand smoke represents a substantial public health > hazard." > > The EPA study (which all other secondhand smoke studies are based on) was tossed > out by not only Judge William Osteen > (http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm), but also tossed out > by the CRS (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm) Congressional > Research Service for those who aren't aware.  Both Judge Osteen and the CRS > called the EPA study "unscientific" and described their data as "cherry picked." > > So voting for or supporting legislation that bans smoking in private businesses > in America is not a vote for freedom, nor a vote for health.  It is at best a > vote for comfort and a vote to callously disregard the comfort and freedom of > others. > > > > > Follow  :) ----  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com     Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 5:13 PM, ACS wrote: > It's funny how people think that the right to smoke is some sort of God > given human liberty. This debate and the frivolous tobacco lawsuits > ("yes, my testimony I did not realize that smoking was dangerous"), seems > to show that smokers love to play the victim card. What is so hard about > not smoking inside? What's so hard about a non-smoker keeping his ass out of a building where the building owner (who paid for the building and business) has decided smoking is permitted?  I didn't say smoking indoors is a "God given right" anywhere, I said property rights should be given more respect than you're demonstrating. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:20:50 From: ACS Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 8:32 PM, Follow wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 5:13 PM, ACS wrote: > > > It's funny how people think that the right to smoke is some sort of God > > given human liberty. This debate and the frivolous tobacco lawsuits > > ("yes, my testimony I did not realize that smoking was dangerous"), seems > > to show that smokers love to play the victim card. What is so hard about > > not smoking inside? > > What's so hard about a non-smoker keeping his ass out of a building where the > building owner (who paid for the building and business) has decided smoking is > permitted?  I have no problem with this. > I didn't say smoking indoors is a "God given right" anywhere, I said > property rights should be given more respect than you're demonstrating. > > > > Follow  :) -------  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com   Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:12:11 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Mon, 11 Dec 06 22:13:21 GMT, Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote: >Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because of >this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will.  There is a >bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to >drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do.  Soon (the law hasn't taken >effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of >continued competition.  It's over for them. This is why I disagree with a blanket ban on smoking in public establishments. People have a right to go to a bar like this. If I still smoked, I would probably be amused by a gimmick like this. However, people have a right to go out to eat and not be poisoned by their neighbors. I'd prefer to see market forces handle this as opposed to bans, though. If it weren't for some truly obdurate stupidity, that would have been what would have happened.     Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 5:12 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: > This is why I disagree with a blanket ban on smoking in public establishments. > > People have a right to go to a bar like this. If I still smoked, I would > probably be amused by a gimmick like this. > > However, people have a right to go out to eat and not be poisoned by their > neighbors. I'd prefer to see market forces handle this as opposed to bans, > though. If it weren't for some truly obdurate stupidity, that would have been > what would have happened. I agree with your last paragraph 100%.  If a business owner bans smoking in his/her business, I would have no qualm, go for it.  But I don't see a purpose in government stepping in and forcing them to.  Let the market decide. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:43:21 From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 4:29 PM, Follow wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 5:12 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: > > > This is why I disagree with a blanket ban on smoking in public establishments. > > > > People have a right to go to a bar like this. If I still smoked, I would > > probably be amused by a gimmick like this. > > > > However, people have a right to go out to eat and not be poisoned by their > > neighbors. I'd prefer to see market forces handle this as opposed to bans, > > though. If it weren't for some truly obdurate stupidity, that would have been > > what would have happened. > > I agree with your last paragraph 100%. If a business owner bans smoking in > his/her business, I would have no qualm, go for it. But I don't see a purpose > in government stepping in and forcing them to. Let the market decide. > > Yeah, they tried, that, for years, it was called "smoking section" and it doesn't work. Smoke drifts. > > > Follow :) ------ brewmaster at brewcam dot com "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right" -RH ____________________________________________________________________  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com         Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 10:43 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:   > Yeah, they tried, that, for years, it was called "smoking section" and it > doesn't work. Smoke drifts. > ------ > brewmaster at brewcam dot com > > "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if > you look at it right" -RH So complain to the owner and explain to them that you won't be coming back because the smoke bothers you.  That way you're not exerting force, and still making your message clear.  But that's not enough for anti-smoking nazis. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 2006 05:13:39 From: Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 5:12 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: > > > This is why I disagree with a blanket ban on smoking in public establishments. > > > > People have a right to go to a bar like this. If I still smoked, I would > > probably be amused by a gimmick like this. > > > > However, people have a right to go out to eat and not be poisoned by their > > neighbors. I'd prefer to see market forces handle this as opposed to bans, > > though. If it weren't for some truly obdurate stupidity, that would have been > > what would have happened. > > I agree with your last paragraph 100%. If a business owner bans smoking in > his/her business, I would have no qualm, go for it. But I don't see a purpose > in government stepping in and forcing them to. Let the market decide. > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com Do you believe that people have a right to fair and safe employment free from discrimination and harm to their person? I realize that from a customers point of view it's a simple decision - let market forces decide, however if you've got a family to support and you're a career bartender it might be a lot more difficult to find somewhere to work that's safe.       Date: 12 Dec 16:05:21 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 6:13 AM, abe.buckingham@gmail.com wrote: > Do you believe that people have a right to fair and safe employment > free from discrimination and harm to their person? I realize that from > a customers point of view it's a simple decision - let market forces > decide, however if you've got a family to support and you're a career > bartender it might be a lot more difficult to find somewhere to work > that's safe. I think a bartender chose his profession and should deal with the consequences of that choice.  Was the career bartender unaware that he would be dealing with smokers when he started?  Was he forced into being a bartender?  Sure, he has a right to do as he pleases, and it isn't the purpose of government to make his choice more comfortable because now he wants to take it back.  Want to change it?  Great!  Go study a new field and join it. I don't buy the bullshit of someone being "trapped" in their field. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec 2006 07:49:27 From: FL Turbo Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On 12 Dec 2006 05:13:39 -0800, abe.buckingham@gmail.com wrote: > >Follow wrote: >> On Dec 11 2006 5:12 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: >> >> > This is why I disagree with a blanket ban on smoking in public establishments. >> > >> > People have a right to go to a bar like this. If I still smoked, I would >> > probably be amused by a gimmick like this. >> > >> > However, people have a right to go out to eat and not be poisoned by their >> > neighbors. I'd prefer to see market forces handle this as opposed to bans, >> > though. If it weren't for some truly obdurate stupidity, that would have been >> > what would have happened. >> >> I agree with your last paragraph 100%. If a business owner bans smoking in >> his/her business, I would have no qualm, go for it. But I don't see a purpose >> in government stepping in and forcing them to. Let the market decide. >> >> >> >> >> Follow :) >> >> _______________________________________________________________ >> Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com > >Do you believe that people have a right to fair and safe employment >free from discrimination and harm to their person? I realize that from >a customers point of view it's a simple decision - let market forces >decide, however if you've got a family to support and you're a career >bartender it might be a lot more difficult to find somewhere to work >that's safe. The long, slow slide to Nanny State government continues.   Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:46:45 From: Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on > this... > > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government. I agree > with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to > choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room. What's funny is that most > smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are exactly > the opposite. > > As it stands without bans on smoking in private establishments such as bars and > restaurants; we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments > and owners have the choice of making it one or the other. There is no law on > the books, nor has there ever been a law requiring an establishment to have a > smoking area available. But now, we are talking about a law forbidding a > smoking area and somehow decide that this is a vote for more liberty? I don't > think so. > > I find it curious that I see "Republicans" like Irish Mike on this topic > sounding off on a smoking ban. Aren't "Republicans" supposed to be interested > in property rights and the soveriegnty of that ownership? Are you only a > "Republican" when it doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities? It's quite > simple, you don't like being around smokers, you don't enter a restaurant or bar > which permits smoking and take your grievance to the owner(s) of said > establishment. I thought only Democrats passed frivolous laws to suit their own > comfort. > > Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and > bar smoking ban took effect. The loophole was that these "clubs" required > membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant > or bar and were not impacted by the law. Nearly every bar in Utah and some > restaurants turned into "private clubs." There were however others that did > not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a > choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking establishment. > How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices. You want to smoke, here > is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. > > That changed this year when legislators decided that smoking clubs were still > evil and possibly breaking god's law, and passed more legislation disallowing > even the private clubs from allowing smoking. Now we have no more choice, no > smoking and non-smoking clubs, nothing, just a bunch of "smoke-free" everythings > with a group of people with the audacity to say they're on the side of > "freedom." I would venture so far as to say they are fighters for "comfort" but > definitely a little bit on the facist side as far as "freedom" is concerned. > > Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because of > this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will. There is a > bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to > drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do. Soon (the law hasn't taken > effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of > continued competition. It's over for them. > > Besides all of the property concerns, most of the anti-smoking crowd should > already be well aware of how bunk their "evidence" is regarding second hand > smoke. Every study up until recently has relied on the EPA study entitled > "EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other > Disorders." Including the studies by WHO and the BMA which titled their studies > with very scary names, and discussed how evil the dangers of second hand smoke > were. They also believed that since their study was so long and filled with > pointless graphs and ridiculous hyperbole and posturing, that no one would > notice little lines like these in the middle of the report: > > "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to > environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and > before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant > associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, > 1973-85, and 1973-98. > > This was a 30 year study, the longest and most tedious ever performed. This is > also a study by the BMA who, by their own words say things like this: > > "The BMA has long supported legislation to ban smoking in public places as a > necessary step in combating the dangers of second-hand smoke to non-smokers. > Some progress has been made." > > These guys are an anti-smoking lobby group, who conducted the longest study on > second hand smoke EVER performed, and they found "NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION" > but still they persist in trying to ban smoking and putting out studies with > information inside them saying there is no significant association, but titling > them with names like: "second-hand smoke represents a substantial public health > hazard." > > The EPA study (which all other secondhand smoke studies are based on) was tossed > out by not only Judge William Osteen > (http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm), but also tossed out > by the CRS (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm) Congressional > Research Service for those who aren't aware. Both Judge Osteen and the CRS > called the EPA study "unscientific" and described their data as "cherry picked." > > So voting for or supporting legislation that bans smoking in private businesses > in America is not a vote for freedom, nor a vote for health. It is at best a > vote for comfort and a vote to callously disregard the comfort and freedom of > others. > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com Here is a question - is it within the governments right to require companies to provide protective gear to workers handling dangerous goods? For example, can the government regulate the handling of radioactive materials and require that certain protections be in place for the workers?     Date: 11 Dec 2006 16:14:44 From: johnny T Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... abe.buckingham@gmail.com wrote: \ > > Here is a question - is it within the governments right to require > companies to provide protective gear to workers handling dangerous > goods? For example, can the government regulate the handling of > radioactive materials and require that certain protections be in place > for the workers? > There is a germ of a reasonable argument here. But it doesn't start here, and it is probably not useful to start off here. It makes too bad assumptions... First is there any body that would do this, that would change because of government regulations. Second is there a nice practically infinite pool of replacements that would do this, even if there was a company that would change because of government regulations. I would posit no. And in which case it is a meaningless argument. Lets try treated sewage water and see if THAT gets you to where you want to go.     Date: 11 Dec 23:55:23 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 4:46 PM, abe.buckingham@gmail.com wrote: > Here is a question - is it within the governments right to require > companies to provide protective gear to workers handling dangerous > goods? For example, can the government regulate the handling of > radioactive materials and require that certain protections be in place > for the workers? My personal opinion is no, only to disclaim it accurately, but it's completely beside the point.  I think highly radioactive material deserves different consideration than a pinch of tobacco rolled in paper.  Comparing cigarettes to uranium is ludicrous. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:13:09 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Mon, 11 Dec 06 23:55:23 GMT, Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote: >On Dec 11 2006 4:46 PM, abe.buckingham@gmail.com wrote: >> Here is a question - is it within the governments right to require >> companies to provide protective gear to workers handling dangerous >> goods? For example, can the government regulate the handling of >> radioactive materials and require that certain protections be in place >> for the workers? >My personal opinion is no, only to disclaim it accurately, but it's completely >beside the point.  I think highly radioactive material deserves different >consideration than a pinch of tobacco rolled in paper.  Comparing cigarettes to >uranium is ludicrous. For one thing, uranium has uses that are beneficial to society.     Date: 12 Dec 2006 05:07:47 From: Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 4:46 PM, abe.buckingham@gmail.com wrote: > > > Here is a question - is it within the governments right to require > > companies to provide protective gear to workers handling dangerous > > goods? For example, can the government regulate the handling of > > radioactive materials and require that certain protections be in place > > for the workers? > > My personal opinion is no, only to disclaim it accurately, but it's completely > beside the point. I think highly radioactive material deserves different > consideration than a pinch of tobacco rolled in paper. Comparing cigarettes to > uranium is ludicrous. > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com Why is it unfair to compare them? They both cause cancer and various other health ailments. Both can be prevented by simple protective gear and properly installed safety equipment. Seems the obvious chose to me would be making employers properly protect their employees. Of course most would opt for a ban, since it's much cheaper and the vast majority of smokers don't mind going outside for a couple minutes anyway. Personally I think smoking bans are exactly what the government is for - to prevent others from causing you harm.       Date: 12 Dec 16:02:34 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 6:07 AM, abe.buckingham@gmail.com wrote: > Why is it unfair to compare them? They both cause cancer and various > other health ailments. Both can be prevented by simple protective gear > and properly installed safety equipment. Seems the obvious chose to me > would be making employers properly protect their employees. Of course > most would opt for a ban, since it's much cheaper and the vast majority > of smokers don't mind going outside for a couple minutes anyway. > > Personally I think smoking bans are exactly what the government is for > - to prevent others from causing you harm. It's unfair to compare them because: 1.  We have undisputed science backing the harm of Uranium, while we have very disputed science regarding secondhand smoke. 2.  Because the conditions are different, one is hot radiation that is not only illegal to own for personal use, but gives off large amounts of a very different carcinogen (it's not even techinically a carcinogen, it's how the body reacts to it). 3.  I don't think we should have regulations *forcing* people to wear protective equipment while handling Uranium, only guidelines telling them that it's unsafe not to.  Let them choose if they want to wear protective gear or they don't, I imagine every person will choose to wear it. I can go on and on, but it should be clear by now that comparing a harmful radioactive isotope to smoking a cigarette is just silly. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec 2006 06:12:46 From: TLira Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 7:07 AM, abe.buckingham wrote: > Why is it unfair to compare them? They both cause cancer and various > other health ailments. Both can be prevented by simple protective gear > and properly installed safety equipment. Seems the obvious chose to me > would be making employers properly protect their employees. Of course > most would opt for a ban, since it's much cheaper and the vast majority > of smokers don't mind going outside for a couple minutes anyway. > > Personally I think smoking bans are exactly what the government is for > - to prevent others from causing you harm. What about drinking? Others can cause you a lot of harm after drinking. What did you think of prohibition? I don't care much either way about the smoking bans. But the laws against smoking seem a little too fascist to me... TLira --------  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com       Date: 13 Dec 2006 07:26:04 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... abe.buckingham@gmail.com;1007756 Wrote: > Follow wrote: > > On Dec 11 2006 4:46 PM, abe.buckingham@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Here is a question - is it within the governments right to require > > > companies to provide protective gear to workers handling dangerous > > > goods? For example, can the government regulate the handling of > > > radioactive materials and require that certain protections be in > place > > > for the workers? > > > > My personal opinion is no, only to disclaim it accurately, but it's > completely > > beside the point. I think highly radioactive material deserves > different > > consideration than a pinch of tobacco rolled in paper. Comparing > cigarettes to > > uranium is ludicrous. > > > > > > > > > > Follow :) > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com > > Why is it unfair to compare them? They both cause cancer and various > other health ailments. Both can be prevented by simple protective gear > and properly installed safety equipment. Seems the obvious chose to me > would be making employers properly protect their employees. Of course > most would opt for a ban, since it's much cheaper and the vast > majority > of smokers don't mind going outside for a couple minutes anyway. > > Personally I think smoking bans are exactly what the government is for > - to prevent others from causing you harm. What harm? Didn't you read about the EPA study in the original post? -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -   Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:28:56 From: JohnnyYooper Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: There is a > bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to > drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do. Soon (the law hasn't taken > effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of > continued competition. It's over for them. that hookah stuff sounds disgusting. i remember bong water from my younger days. these hookah bar users are sharing this hookah pipe hose with strangers and sucking it thru public bong water?     Date: 11 Dec 23:51:28 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 4:28 PM, JohnnyYooper wrote:  > that hookah stuff sounds disgusting. i remember bong water from my > younger days. these hookah bar users are sharing this hookah pipe hose > with strangers and sucking it thru public bong water? I don't know what their sanitation methods are, but I'm sure they keep things clean somehow.  I do know that it's a popular passtime with many of our hippyish crowd who seem to dig most things middle eastern, I've never actually tried it nor been to the bar itself.  I just know of it, and know that I've been asked by many unassociated friends if I wanted to go there with them. But I don't really care if they sanitize or they don't, nor how gross I might consider it personally.  I consider it their own choice to do as they please and I can choose whether or not to join them if I please.  Life works better that way.  ;) Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:44:45 From: Douglas Dunn Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 4:28 PM, JohnnyYooper wrote: > > > that hookah stuff sounds disgusting. i remember bong water from my > > younger days. these hookah bar users are sharing this hookah pipe hose > > with strangers and sucking it thru public bong water? > They have hookah condoms. > I don't know what their sanitation methods are, but I'm sure they keep things > clean somehow. I do know that it's a popular passtime with many of our hippyish > crowd who seem to dig most things middle eastern, I've never actually tried it > nor been to the bar itself. I just know of it, and know that I've been asked by > many unassociated friends if I wanted to go there with them. > > But I don't really care if they sanitize or they don't, nor how gross I might > consider it personally. I consider it their own choice to do as they please and > I can choose whether or not to join them if I please. Life works better that > way. ;) > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 11 Dec 23:22:39 From: Chris in Texas Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 4:13 PM, Follow wrote: > > Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and > bar smoking ban took effect.  The loophole was that these "clubs" required > membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant > or bar and were not impacted by the law.  Nearly every bar in Utah and some > restaurants turned into "private clubs."  There were however others that did > not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a > choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking > establishment.  > How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices.  You want to smoke, > here > is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. After the local ordinance was passed in July alot of the bars got together and had an attorney look into the private club aspect.  The strict liquor laws in Texas killed that arguement when it was discovered that to qualify as a private club for your liquor license there was a bunch of hoops to go through, the most onerous of which meant you have to have a system of allowing members to have their charges billed monthly.  Bye bye private club loophole LOL. _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 11 Dec 22:33:22 From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 4:13 PM, Follow wrote: > I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on > this... > > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government. The purpose of government is to make me happy. Your opinion doesn't count. Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 2006 02:36:20 From: Peter Anderson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... What about the people who are forced to risk their health working in a smoking environment. I was a poker dealer in a smoking card room and it was awful. Oh, I know the pat answer......nobody forces you to work anywhere. We here in Washington State have survived the smoking ban just fine. "Gary Carson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu > wrote in message news:1165876402$919893@recpoker.com... > > > > On Dec 11 2006 4:13 PM, Follow wrote: > >> I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on >> this... >> >> In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government. > > The purpose of government is to make me happy. > > Your opinion doesn't count. > > > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 7:36 PM, Peter Anderson wrote: > What about the people who are forced to risk their health working in a > smoking environment. > > I was a poker dealer in a smoking card room and it was awful. > > Oh, I know the pat answer......nobody forces you to work anywhere. > > We here in Washington State have survived the smoking ban just fine. You know the answer, why ask the question?  Didn't it go through your mind at all that you might be exposed to smoke in your *chosen* profession?  If you didn't want to expose yourself to smoke, isn't your responsibility to avoid the smokers rather than walk into their domain and tell them they can't do what they're doing? If you didn't like animals, would you become a vetrinarian and then complain that people bring animals into your office?  I just don't understand the logic. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 12 Dec From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 8:45 PM, Follow wrote: > > > > On Dec 11 2006 7:36 PM, Peter Anderson wrote: > > > What about the people who are forced to risk their health working in a > > smoking environment. > > > > I was a poker dealer in a smoking card room and it was awful. > > > > Oh, I know the pat answer......nobody forces you to work anywhere. > > > > We here in Washington State have survived the smoking ban just fine. > > You know the answer, why ask the question?  Didn't it go through your mind at > all that you might be exposed to smoke in your *chosen* profession?  If you > didn't want to expose yourself to smoke, isn't your responsibility to avoid > the > smokers rather than walk into their domain and tell them they can't do what > they're doing? > > If you didn't like animals, would you become a vetrinarian and then complain > that people bring animals into your office?  I just don't understand the > logic. It's law.  Not logic.  Government has the right, the duty, to regulate safety conditions in the workplace. At one time in this country a company had the right to shot a union organizer on their property.  Pinkerton's can't do that anymore.  Government has decided that part of their role is to protect workers.  And they've passed many laws doing just that. You seem to prefer that rights be given to property owners rather than people.  It's perfectly logical to do that.  It's also perfectly logical to not do that.  Logic doesn't convey rights, law conveys rights. Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 9:25 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > It's law.  Not logic.  Government has the right, the duty, to regulate safety > conditions in the workplace. > > At one time in this country a company had the right to shot a union organizer > on > their property.  Pinkerton's can't do that anymore.  Government has decided > that > part of their role is to protect workers.  And they've passed many laws doing > just that. > > You seem to prefer that rights be given to property owners rather than > people.  > It's perfectly logical to do that.  It's also perfectly logical to not do > that.  > Logic doesn't convey rights, law conveys rights. > > > > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com So your entire position depends upon divorcing logic from law?  I just want to make sure I'm reading that correctly. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 10:54 PM, Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 11 2006 9:25 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > > > It's law.  Not logic.  Government has the right, the duty, to regulate > > safety > > conditions in the workplace. > > > > At one time in this country a company had the right to shot a union > > organizer > > on > > their property.  Pinkerton's can't do that anymore.  Government has decided > > that > > part of their role is to protect workers.  And they've passed many laws > > doing > > just that. > > > > You seem to prefer that rights be given to property owners rather than > > people.  > > It's perfectly logical to do that.  It's also perfectly logical to not do > > that.  > > Logic doesn't convey rights, law conveys rights. > > > > > > > > Gary Carson > > http://www.garycarson.com > > So your entire position depends upon divorcing logic from law?  I just want to > make sure I'm reading that correctly. Huh? Law has nothing to do with logic and never has. Legal arguement is about rhetoric, not logic, and it's always been that way.  There's no requirement at all that law even be internally consistent. The application of law and protecting rights is simply about rhetorical devises that can be used to establish some semblance of balance between competing goals. Go to law school.  Or just read a book. Do you think the terms reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance of the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt have a logical basis?  We know the ranks of thos levels of evidence rank, but the phrases themselves don't actually mean anything.  It's just rehtoric.  That's the way law is.  That's why "pre-law" is about the study of humanities like history and philisophical thought.  My position is simply that I like laws that outlaw public smoking.  I'm a big fan of them.  They got passed when enough lawmakers became convinced that the laws would provide a social good and that they could rationalize them by grasping the pretense of "health in the workplace".  That was just rhetoric, it wasn't logic.  But rhetoric counts. If you don't like them, fine.  But you lost. Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 12 Dec 2006 09:20:55 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Gary Carson;1007667 Wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 10:54 PM, Follow wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 11 2006 9:25 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > > > > > It's law.  Not logic.  Government has the right, the duty, to > regulate > > > safety > > > conditions in the workplace. > > > > > > At one time in this country a company had the right to shot a > union > > > organizer > > > on > > > their property.  Pinkerton's can't do that anymore.  Government has > decided > > > that > > > part of their role is to protect workers.  And they've passed many > laws > > > doing > > > just that. > > > > > > You seem to prefer that rights be given to property owners rather > than > > > people.  > > > It's perfectly logical to do that.  It's also perfectly logical to > not do > > > that.  > > > Logic doesn't convey rights, law conveys rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary Carson > > > http://www.garycarson.com > > > > So your entire position depends upon divorcing logic from law?  I > just want to > > make sure I'm reading that correctly. > > Huh? > > Law has nothing to do with logic and never has. > > Legal arguement is about rhetoric, not logic, and it's always been that > way.  > There's no requirement at all that law even be internally consistent. > > The application of law and protecting rights is simply about rhetorical > devises > that can be used to establish some semblance of balance between > competing goals. > > Go to law school.  Or just read a book. > > Do you think the terms reasonable suspicion, probable cause, > preponderance of > the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt have a logical basis?  We know > the ranks > of thos levels of evidence rank, but the phrases themselves don't > actually mean > anything.  It's just rehtoric.  That's the way law is.  That's why > "pre-law" is > about the study of humanities like history and philisophical thought.  > > My position is simply that I like laws that outlaw public smoking.  I'm > a big > fan of them.  They got passed when enough lawmakers became convinced > that the > laws would provide a social good and that they could rationalize them > by > grasping the pretense of "health in the workplace".  That was just > rhetoric, it > wasn't logic.  But rhetoric counts. > > If you don't like them, fine.  But you lost. > > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com Well, the way you know Gary Carson is on the ropes in an argument, is when the double talk kicks in. He cites trial procedure terminology and then tries to to link it with statute law. Zoning laws aren't based in logic? A separation of industrial businesses from residential areas is based on, what, philosophy? Really, try again. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -               Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 10:20 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > Huh? > > Law has nothing to do with logic and never has. > > Legal arguement is about rhetoric, not logic, and it's always been that way.  > There's no requirement at all that law even be internally consistent. Actually, it does have that requirement, and law does have to do with logic.  That's why we debate, if law were to be simply at the whim of a supreme dictator (as you seem to be under the impression it is), we wouldn't debate and we would have no Congress or lobbyists.  As it stands, logic is supposed to dictate law. > The application of law and protecting rights is simply about rhetorical > devises > that can be used to establish some semblance of balance between competing > goals. That's an interesting definition.  I always thought laws were meant to keep peace and maintain as many rights as possible without interfering with the rights of others.  At least that's how the Constitution was written and the opinion of the Supreme Court.  You've made a new goal, I'm sure they'd be interesed in knowing they've been doing it wrong. > Go to law school.  Or just read a book. Funny you should mention that, I've actually studied law on my own for quite some time.  I was preparing for law school not long ago, but I dropped it. > Do you think the terms reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance of > the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt have a logical basis?  We know the ranks > of thos levels of evidence rank, but the phrases themselves don't actually > mean > anything.  It's just rehtoric.  That's the way law is.  That's why "pre-law" > is > about the study of humanities like history and philisophical thought.  So because these words don't seem logical to you, that means the law must not be based in logic?  That's also interesting.  I think your method of discovery leaves something to be desired. > My position is simply that I like laws that outlaw public smoking.  I'm a big > fan of them.  They got passed when enough lawmakers became convinced that the > laws would provide a social good and that they could rationalize them by > grasping the pretense of "health in the workplace".  That was just rhetoric, > it > wasn't logic.  But rhetoric counts. > > If you don't like them, fine.  But you lost. > > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com Lost?  This reply is filled with interesting definitions.  I wouldn't call it a loss, at least not one that can't be repaired when Americans wake up and see that they're allowing government to hold too much power over them.  When would you like to see it end, Gary?  What if a majority of Americans decided that poker books should no longer be written or sold and all money from previous sales should be siezed for the greater good?  Would you simply just shut up and agree with the majority because they've decided what's best for you?  I have a notion that you might not be so inclined to lay down when lawmakers kick you in the nuts, but it's perfectly alright when they kick others. Gotta love it. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 12 Dec 2006 03:00:17 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1165891546$920060@recpoker.com: > If you didn't like animals, would you become a vetrinarian and then > complain that people bring animals into your office? I just don't > understand the logic. I don't understand the logic that says that even though we know for a fact that cigarette smoking is very bad for your health, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the EXACT SAME smoke has no ill effects on innocent bystanders. Pull the other one. David           Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 8:00 PM, David Kehler wrote: > I don't understand the logic that says that even though we know for a fact > that cigarette smoking is very bad for your health, it's perfectly > reasonable to assume that the EXACT SAME smoke has no ill effects on > innocent bystanders. Pull the other one. > > David I don't have the time to go over this with you now, but re-read and look for the place in this thread that I said second hand smoke has NO ill effects.  Also, look for a part of this thread where that point was germaine to the points overall.  The point that the studies were junk science was only an aside to the main point, which is property rights. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec 2006 03:24:59 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1165892749$920070@recpoker.com: > > > > On Dec 11 2006 8:00 PM, David Kehler wrote: > >> I don't understand the logic that says that even though we know for a >> fact that cigarette smoking is very bad for your health, it's >> perfectly reasonable to assume that the EXACT SAME smoke has no ill >> effects on innocent bystanders. Pull the other one. >> >> David > > I don't have the time to go over this with you now, but re-read and > look for the place in this thread that I said second hand smoke has NO > ill effects.  Well, if you're now admitting that it does have ill effects on innocent bystanders, then it becomes a matter of public health/safety and that, my friend, trumps property rights, as it should. David               Date: 11 Dec 2006 20:40:25 From: I_AM_EVIL Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 10:24 PM, David Kehler wrote: > Follow <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in > news:1165892749$920070@recpoker.com: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11 2006 8:00 PM, David Kehler wrote: > > > >> I don't understand the logic that says that even though we know for a > >> fact that cigarette smoking is very bad for your health, it's > >> perfectly reasonable to assume that the EXACT SAME smoke has no ill > >> effects on innocent bystanders. Pull the other one. > >> > >> David > > > > I don't have the time to go over this with you now, but re-read and > > look for the place in this thread that I said second hand smoke has NO > > ill effects.  > > Well, if you're now admitting that it does have ill effects on innocent > bystanders, then it becomes a matter of public health/safety and that, my > friend, trumps property rights, as it should. > > David Exhaust from automoblies causes just as much ill effects on innocent bystanders. So let's ban automobiles also. Exhaust becomes a matter of public health/safety and that, my friend, trumps property rights, as it should. The 2nd Amendment........America's TRUE Homeland Security. -----  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com                 Date: 12 Dec From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 10:40 PM, I_AM_EVIL wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 10:24 PM, David Kehler wrote: > > > Follow <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in > > news:1165892749$920070@recpoker.com: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11 2006 8:00 PM, David Kehler wrote: > > > > > >> I don't understand the logic that says that even though we know for a > > >> fact that cigarette smoking is very bad for your health, it's > > >> perfectly reasonable to assume that the EXACT SAME smoke has no ill > > >> effects on innocent bystanders. Pull the other one. > > >> > > >> David > > > > > > I don't have the time to go over this with you now, but re-read and > > > look for the place in this thread that I said second hand smoke has NO > > > ill effects.  > > > > Well, if you're now admitting that it does have ill effects on innocent > > bystanders, then it becomes a matter of public health/safety and that, my > > friend, trumps property rights, as it should. > > > > David > > > Exhaust from automoblies causes just as much ill effects on innocent > bystanders. So let's ban automobiles also. Exhaust becomes a matter of > public health/safety and that, my friend, trumps property rights, as it > should. Are you familiar with the US?  There are lot's of places in the US that bans automobiles. If you want to try to make factually based arguements without having a clue what the facts actually are you'd do better on Fox News than in public discourse. Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 12 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 9:40 PM, I_AM_EVIL wrote: > > Well, if you're now admitting that it does have ill effects on innocent > > bystanders, then it becomes a matter of public health/safety and that, my > > friend, trumps property rights, as it should. > > > > David > > > Exhaust from automoblies causes just as much ill effects on innocent > bystanders. So let's ban automobiles also. Exhaust becomes a matter of > public health/safety and that, my friend, trumps property rights, as it > should. > > > The 2nd Amendment........America's TRUE Homeland Security. I agree with Evil here, and I didn't say it causes harm or it doesn't, I said it's not proven.  Reading a position helps before formulating a rebuttal. And safety concerns are not government domain when they interfere with personal choice.  Sitting in front of your computer is harmful too, at least that's what Mom always said.  She also told me masturbation was cause me to go blind, and open windows cause colds.  She had just as much science backing her claims as these organizations have backing theirs.  I suppose we should introduce a whole gammut of new laws to cover all of these things as well, ban computers in the workplace, no more masturbation, and no more open windows at night and especially not with wet hair! Ya David, I see your point....really. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 12 Dec 2006 17:31:42 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1165899148$920119@recpoker.com: > > > On Dec 11 2006 9:40 PM, I_AM_EVIL wrote: > >> > Well, if you're now admitting that it does have ill effects on >> > innocent bystanders, then it becomes a matter of public >> > health/safety and that, my friend, trumps property rights, as it >> > should. >> > >> > David >> >> >> Exhaust from automoblies causes just as much ill effects on >> innocent >> bystanders. So let's ban automobiles also. Exhaust becomes a matter >> of public health/safety and that, my friend, trumps property rights, >> as it should. >> >> >> The 2nd Amendment........America's TRUE Homeland Security. > > > I agree with Evil here, and I didn't say it causes harm or it doesn't, > I said it's not proven.  Reading a position helps before formulating a > rebuttal. Well, either you believe it causes harm, or you believe it doesn't. Any reasonable person would be able to figure out that breathing poison is almost certain to cause ill effects over time. > > And safety concerns are not government domain when they interfere with > personal choice.  Sitting in front of your computer is harmful too, at > least that's what Mom always said.  She also told me masturbation was > cause me to go blind, and open windows cause colds.  She had just as > much science backing her claims as these organizations have backing > theirs.  I suppose we should introduce a whole gammut of new laws to > cover all of these things as well, ban computers in the workplace, no > more masturbation, and no more open windows at night and especially > not with wet hair! > > Ya David, I see your point....really. > > > > > Follow  :) > Doing things that are potentially unsafe in the privacy of your own home is one thing, and public smoke bans say nothing about that. And the other place where your analogy breaks down is the fact that your examples do not negatively affect the innocent bystanders that happen to be around you. Or do you go around and masturbate on people in bars and restaurants? ;-) David                     Date: 12 Dec 18:08:52 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 10:31 AM, David Kehler wrote: > Well, either you believe it causes harm, or you believe it doesn't. Any > reasonable person would be able to figure out that breathing poison is > almost certain to cause ill effects over time. Because you're sure one way or the other means the rest of us have to be as well?  I didn't say I believed either, I said I don't know.  I've only read the reports and based on those it causes no harm, but based on my own sense it seems like it should.  Therefore, I give it the benefit of the doubt by saying I don't know. > Doing things that are potentially unsafe in the privacy of your own home is > one thing, and public smoke bans say nothing about that. And the other > place where your analogy breaks down is the fact that your examples do not > negatively affect the innocent bystanders that happen to be around you. Or > do you go around and masturbate on people in bars and restaurants? ;-) > > David Again, we are discussing a private establishment.  These places are NOT publically owned, people just think they are for some reason.  Your tax money did not fund your local Denny's, it is a private establishment that is open to serve the public.  You are not forced to pay for its operation, nor are you forced to enter the building. Want to ban smoking in public buildings?  Libraries?  Courthouses?  Post offices?  By all means, please take a vote and do it.  But don't assume that restaurants and bars are "public," they're just open to the public.  They are still private. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 12 Dec 2006 04:43:05 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Cars provide some benefits to society in exchange for their deadly exhaust. What benefits (other than to tobacco companies and their workers and heirs) do cigarettes provide? On Dec 11 2006 11:52 PM, Follow wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 9:40 PM, I_AM_EVIL wrote: > > > > Well, if you're now admitting that it does have ill effects on innocent > > > bystanders, then it becomes a matter of public health/safety and that, my > > > friend, trumps property rights, as it should. > > > > > > David > > > > > > Exhaust from automoblies causes just as much ill effects on innocent > > bystanders. So let's ban automobiles also. Exhaust becomes a matter of > > public health/safety and that, my friend, trumps property rights, as it > > should. > > > > > > The 2nd Amendment........America's TRUE Homeland Security. > > > I agree with Evil here, and I didn't say it causes harm or it doesn't, I said > it's not proven.  Reading a position helps before formulating a rebuttal. > > And safety concerns are not government domain when they interfere with personal > choice.  Sitting in front of your computer is harmful too, at least that's what > Mom always said.  She also told me masturbation was cause me to go blind, and > open windows cause colds.  She had just as much science backing her claims as > these organizations have backing theirs.  I suppose we should introduce a whole > gammut of new laws to cover all of these things as well, ban computers in the > workplace, no more masturbation, and no more open windows at night and > especially not with wet hair! > > Ya David, I see your point....really. > > > > > Follow  :) thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7 ________________________________________________________________________  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com                 Date: 12 Dec 2006 17:23:05 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... "I_AM_EVIL" <a1632@webnntp.invalid > wrote in news:peo154x1h2.ln2@recgroups.com: > On Dec 11 2006 10:24 PM, David Kehler wrote: > >> Follow <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in >> news:1165892749$920070@recpoker.com: >> >> > >> > >> > >> > On Dec 11 2006 8:00 PM, David Kehler wrote: >> > >> >> I don't understand the logic that says that even though we know >> >> for a fact that cigarette smoking is very bad for your health, >> >> it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the EXACT SAME smoke has >> >> no ill effects on innocent bystanders. Pull the other one. >> >> >> >> David >> > >> > I don't have the time to go over this with you now, but re-read and >> > look for the place in this thread that I said second hand smoke has >> > NO ill effects.  >> >> Well, if you're now admitting that it does have ill effects on >> innocent bystanders, then it becomes a matter of public health/safety >> and that, my friend, trumps property rights, as it should. >> >> David > > > Exhaust from automoblies causes just as much ill effects on > innocent > bystanders. So let's ban automobiles also. Exhaust becomes a matter > of public health/safety and that, my friend, trumps property rights, > as it should. > Hey, I'm completely in favour of cleaner automobile emissions and alternative methods of transportation. But you have to admit that banning automobiles outright would have severe negative consequences on society making such a ban completely impractical at this time. However, banning smoking in public places is very doable, and has little or no such negative consequences, as has been proven time and again in every region where smoke bans have gone into effect. David             Date: 12 Dec 2006 04:39:33 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I am a smoker, and I definitely agree with the property rights argument and letting the market decide. However, I think the market has decided. I for one am happy to spend time in smoke free environments. I do get bothered by other's second hand smoke BION. As for there being no proven long term side effects from second hand smoke, I read what you posted, and it's bullshit. People have a right not to be surrounded by bothersome smoke, and I do believe it must have some effect on health. I a way second hand smoke had an impact on me. I always wanted to be like my father, and he was a smoker. When I was 10 I started stealing and smoking his cigarettes. When I was 11 my father quit and has been smoke free (except for an occassional sneak) for 36 years and I am still hooked. That's a pretty crappy second hand effect. On Dec 11 2006 10:05 PM, Follow wrote: > On Dec 11 2006 8:00 PM, David Kehler wrote: > > > I don't understand the logic that says that even though we know for a fact > > that cigarette smoking is very bad for your health, it's perfectly > > reasonable to assume that the EXACT SAME smoke has no ill effects on > > innocent bystanders. Pull the other one. > > > > David > > I don't have the time to go over this with you now, but re-read and look for the > place in this thread that I said second hand smoke has NO ill effects.  Also, > look for a part of this thread where that point was germaine to the points > overall.  The point that the studies were junk science was only an aside to the > main point, which is property rights. > > > > > Follow  :) thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7 ________________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com               Date: 12 Dec 15:56:42 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 5:39 AM, pokerchimp wrote: > I am a smoker, and I definitely agree with the property rights argument > and letting the market decide. However, I think the market has decided. > I for one am happy to spend time in smoke free environments. I do get > bothered by other's second hand smoke BION. As for there being no proven > long term side effects from second hand smoke, I read what you posted, and > it's bullshit. People have a right not to be surrounded by bothersome > smoke, and I do believe it must have some effect on health. I a way > second hand smoke had an impact on me. I always wanted to be like my > father, and he was a smoker. When I was 10 I started stealing and smoking > his cigarettes. When I was 11 my father quit and has been smoke free > (except for an occassional sneak) for 36 years and I am still hooked. > That's a pretty crappy second hand effect. Besides personal stories, which many people have I'm sure, is there any science that has stood for more than 10 years proving any harmful effects of secondhand smoke conclusively?  The answer is no, and not for lack of trying.  All studies carried out by independant firms or biased firms trying to shut down the tobacco industry have been tested and shown to be incorrect, or wildly overstated.  The BMA didn't even bother hiding that fact, they conducted a 30 year study and found NO significant association, none!  And this is a lobby group against second hand smoke, but when using a real scientific method, found no association at all... When people come to this list with their stories of online cardrooms being "rigged" and their only evidence being their own anecdotal experiences, people are quick to tell them to prove it.  But when it comes to second hand smoke, we are content to buy whichever story is fed to us, even when the science itself says something contrary to what they're telling us is true? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 17 Dec From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I think you don't understand what proof means. In mathematics it's means one thing, in law or social situations it means something else. Mathematics doesn't have degrees of proof, you can either prove it or not. In law, however, there are degrees of proof.  It turns out that 2nd hand smoke damage has been proven to the degree acceptable by people who write the laws.  And that's all the proof that's needed.  It's not mathematics. On Dec 12 2006 9:56 AM, Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 12 2006 5:39 AM, pokerchimp wrote: > > > I am a smoker, and I definitely agree with the property rights argument > > and letting the market decide. However, I think the market has decided. > > I for one am happy to spend time in smoke free environments. I do get > > bothered by other's second hand smoke BION. As for there being no proven > > long term side effects from second hand smoke, I read what you posted, and > > it's bullshit. People have a right not to be surrounded by bothersome > > smoke, and I do believe it must have some effect on health. I a way > > second hand smoke had an impact on me. I always wanted to be like my > > father, and he was a smoker. When I was 10 I started stealing and smoking > > his cigarettes. When I was 11 my father quit and has been smoke free > > (except for an occassional sneak) for 36 years and I am still hooked. > > That's a pretty crappy second hand effect. > > Besides personal stories, which many people have I'm sure, is there any > science > that has stood for more than 10 years proving any harmful effects of > secondhand > smoke conclusively?  The answer is no, and not for lack of trying.  All > studies > carried out by independant firms or biased firms trying to shut down the > tobacco > industry have been tested and shown to be incorrect, or wildly overstated.  > The > BMA didn't even bother hiding that fact, they conducted a 30 year study and > found NO significant association, none!  And this is a lobby group against > second hand smoke, but when using a real scientific method, found no > association > at all... > > When people come to this list with their stories of online cardrooms being > "rigged" and their only evidence being their own anecdotal experiences, people > are quick to tell them to prove it.  But when it comes to second hand smoke, > we > are content to buy whichever story is fed to us, even when the science itself > says something contrary to what they're telling us is true? > > > > > Follow  :) > Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 17 Dec 2006 12:51:21 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Gary Carson wrote: > > I think you don't understand what proof means. > > In mathematics it's means one thing, in law or social situations it means > something else. > > Mathematics doesn't have degrees of proof, you can either prove it or not. > A common misconception. Perhaps in high school, or up to the Master's level of understanding, this might be close to true - but in *real* mathematics it has long been understood that proof is a social construct. Something is "proved" when you can convince your peers that the proof is correct. But, there are always shortcuts taken in the presentation and the checking of a proof (depending mostly on how *important* the result is). Proof at the level of "either prove it or not" is done by students and by computer programs, not by mathematicians. Proof at the cutting edge is not so cut and dried. Belief in "prove it or not" died with Principia Mathematica. Since then, mathematicians have been more interested in finding "God's Proof" than in the truth of the proposition. In that sense, a conference of mathematicians is like a conference of trumpet players: one to present and the other 99 to mumble "I can do it better". -- Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/                   Date: 17 Dec 2006 18:29:08 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu > wrote in news:1166343613$922992@recpoker.com: > I think you don't understand what proof means. > > In mathematics it's means one thing, in law or social situations it > means something else. > > Mathematics doesn't have degrees of proof, you can either prove it or > not. > > In law, however, there are degrees of proof.ÿ It turns out that 2nd > hand smoke damage has been proven to the degree acceptable by people > who write the laws.ÿ And that's all the proof that's needed.ÿ It's not > mathematics. Exactly. Even "Follow" admits it seems more likely that secondhand smoke causes ill effects done doesn't. This can be logically inferred quite simply. That's a good enough reason to ban it in public places. David                   Date: 18 Dec 17:57:17 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 17 2006 1:20 AM, Gary Carson wrote: > > > I think you don't understand what proof means. > > In mathematics it's means one thing, in law or social situations it means > something else. > > Mathematics doesn't have degrees of proof, you can either prove it or not. > > In law, however, there are degrees of proof.  It turns out that 2nd hand smoke > damage has been proven to the degree acceptable by people who write the laws.  > And that's all the proof that's needed.  It's not mathematics. Nice... So by your logic, God is proven.  So are a number of other things, like psychics, and the power of prayer. Pardon me if I have a good belly laugh at your definition of "social proof."  :P Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:55:54 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1166464637$923654@recpoker.com: > > > > On Dec 17 2006 1:20 AM, Gary Carson wrote: > >> >> >> I think you don't understand what proof means. >> >> In mathematics it's means one thing, in law or social situations it >> means something else. >> >> Mathematics doesn't have degrees of proof, you can either prove it or >> not. >> >> In law, however, there are degrees of proof.  It turns out that 2nd >> hand smoke damage has been proven to the degree acceptable by people >> who write the laws.  And that's all the proof that's needed.  It's >> not mathematics. > > Nice... > > So by your logic, God is proven.  So are a number of other things, > like psychics, and the power of prayer. > > Pardon me if I have a good belly laugh at your definition of "social > proof."  :P > I think you have a problem with logic. The only way that it would follow that "God is proven" from what Mr. Carson said would be if the lawmakers wrote laws stating that it was illegal to not believe in God. The same goes for the rest of your faulty assertions. David                       Date: 18 Dec 19:49:19 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 18 2006 11:55 AM, David Kehler wrote: > I think you have a problem with logic. The only way that it would follow > that "God is proven" from what Mr. Carson said would be if the lawmakers > wrote laws stating that it was illegal to not believe in God. The same > goes for the rest of your faulty assertions. > > David Maybe you're unfamiliar with past laws where it was illegal not to believe in God?  The inquisition never happened maybe?  So was God "proven fact" then, but now is not?  What happened between then and now that disproved him?  Most people at the time believed in a flat earth that was the center of the universe.  Was that also "proven fact" then and now isn't? Facts don't change, our understanding of them does.  Just because a bunch of people believe it doesn't make it "proof."  It just means that's what they believe. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                         Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:55:28 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1166471359$923724@recpoker.com: > > > > On Dec 18 2006 11:55 AM, David Kehler wrote: > >> I think you have a problem with logic. The only way that it would >> follow that "God is proven" from what Mr. Carson said would be if the >> lawmakers wrote laws stating that it was illegal to not believe in >> God. The same goes for the rest of your faulty assertions. >> >> David > > Maybe you're unfamiliar with past laws where it was illegal not to > believe in God?  The inquisition never happened maybe?  So was God > "proven fact" then, but now is not?  What happened between then and > now that disproved him?  Most people at the time believed in a flat > earth that was the center of the universe.  Was that also "proven > fact" then and now isn't? No one said anything about "fact". Just that for lawmakers, absolute certainty is not required to enact laws/bylaws as your examples show. There is enough "proof", meaning evidence, of a danger for lawmakers to impose smoking bans regardless of your opinion. Sometimes they make mistakes, but not this time I don't think. > > Facts don't change, our understanding of them does.  Just because a > bunch of people believe it doesn't make it "proof."  It just means > that's what they believe. Yup, and that's all that's needed. > > Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > Don't try to compare smokers to actually disadvantaged minority groups. The sheep never CHOSE to be a sheep in a world dominated by wolves. David                           Date: 18 Dec 23:22:51 From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 18 2006 3:55 PM, David Kehler wrote: > Don't try to compare smokers to actually disadvantaged minority groups. > The sheep never CHOSE to be a sheep in a world dominated by wolves. > > David You don't really have a choice.  There will always be a sheep. That's what's so funny about concepts like a war on crime.  Human society always defines behavior on the fringe as deviant, no matter how closed the society is.  Cloisters of holy men always find some forms of human behavior as deviant.  We can't defeat crime simply because as soon as we eliminate it we define sometning else as crime. It there were no jews for the catholics to kill in the inquisition they'd have just killed catholics who ate cauliflower or something.  No society has ever existed that didn't target deviants for harsh treatment. Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 18 Dec 23:17:22 From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 18 2006 11:57 AM, Follow wrote: > > > > On Dec 17 2006 1:20 AM, Gary Carson wrote: > > > > > > > I think you don't understand what proof means. > > > > In mathematics it's means one thing, in law or social situations it means > > something else. > > > > Mathematics doesn't have degrees of proof, you can either prove it or not. > > > > In law, however, there are degrees of proof.  It turns out that 2nd hand > > smoke > > damage has been proven to the degree acceptable by people who write the > > laws.  > > And that's all the proof that's needed.  It's not mathematics. > > Nice... > > So by your logic, God is proven.  So are a number of other things, like > psychics, and the power of prayer. Yep.  To some people all those things are proven.  It's your job to make sure those people are put in cages and stay there. By the non-mathematical definition of proof, being proven doesn't mean it's true, it just means somebody thinks it's true. Few scientific theory is proven mathematically.  Most is proven socially in that some thoery is accepted as true by by most scientist.  That doesn't make them true, it makes it close enough for now. Something not proven mathematically pretty much says little about it's truth.  But the fact that the idea is presented as viable does say something about the liklihood of its truth. For example, the theory of gravity isn't "true" in the mathematical sense of true. > > Pardon me if I have a good belly laugh at your definition of "social proof."  No problem.  Do you think the legal concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means we've never executed an innocent man?  That's not funny, it's just really sad that we let people like you vote.   Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                       Date: 19 Dec 17:38:00 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 18 2006 4:17 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > > > > On Dec 18 2006 11:57 AM, Follow wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 17 2006 1:20 AM, Gary Carson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think you don't understand what proof means. > > > > > > In mathematics it's means one thing, in law or social situations it means > > > something else. > > > > > > Mathematics doesn't have degrees of proof, you can either prove it or not. > > > > > > In law, however, there are degrees of proof.  It turns out that 2nd hand > > > smoke > > > damage has been proven to the degree acceptable by people who write the > > > laws.  > > > And that's all the proof that's needed.  It's not mathematics. > > > > Nice... > > > > So by your logic, God is proven.  So are a number of other things, like > > psychics, and the power of prayer. > > Yep.  To some people all those things are proven.  It's your job to make sure > those people are put in cages and stay there. > > By the non-mathematical definition of proof, being proven doesn't mean it's > true, it just means somebody thinks it's true. > > Few scientific theory is proven mathematically.  Most is proven socially in > that > some thoery is accepted as true by by most scientist.  That doesn't make them > true, it makes it close enough for now. > > Something not proven mathematically pretty much says little about it's truth.  > But the fact that the idea is presented as viable does say something about the > liklihood of its truth. > > For example, the theory of gravity isn't "true" in the mathematical sense of > true. > > > > > Pardon me if I have a good belly laugh at your definition of "social > > proof."  > > No problem.  Do you think the legal concept of "proof beyond a reasonable > doubt" > means we've never executed an innocent man?  That's not funny, it's just > really > sad that we let people like you vote. > >   > > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com   So what you believe is your "proof" and therefore your truth, and what I believe is mine.  Since you assign such high values to opinions, I can't understand the point of argument, is there a point to discussing anything with you since these "proofs" are all anyone needs for something to be true? I'm glad you said that you're sad I vote Gary, I really am.  After a statement like that, you should take a long look in the mirror and consider your concept of what America means.  Maybe you understand the absolutism of the statement you made and exactly where your paradigm sits from such a horrendous statement. And for the record Gary, despite your being wrong and not agreeing with me, I'm still glad you get to vote.  ;) Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 12 Dec 2006 08:41:52 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... David Kehler;1007600 Wrote: > Follow <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in > news:1165891546$920060@recpoker.com: > > > If you didn't like animals, would you become a vetrinarian and then > > complain that people bring animals into your office? I just don't > > understand the logic. > > I don't understand the logic that says that even though we know for a > fact > that cigarette smoking is very bad for your health, it's perfectly > reasonable to assume that the EXACT SAME smoke has no ill effects on > innocent bystanders. Pull the other one. > > David Because you're not smoking it, you moron. And if you are smoking, it takes decades for any real damage to manifest, if at all.. There are no diseases unique to smoking. There are no diseases attributed to smoking that do not exist in non smokers. This "same smoke" as you call it, hasn't been proven to cause any damage at all. So, it's not the "same smoke", is it, you idiot. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -     Date: 11 Dec 23:00:38 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 11 2006 3:33 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > The purpose of government is to make me happy. > > Your opinion doesn't count. > > > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com   That was actually the position I assigned to those who share your point of view.  As long as you're comfortable with that position, I'm comfortable assigning it to you.  :) Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:56:18 From: johnny T Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Gary Carson wrote: > The purpose of government is to make me happy. > > Your opinion doesn't count. Funny, thats EXACTLY what *his* t-shirt says.   Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:16:09 From: beerboy Subject: Re: On smoking bans and the like... The craziest smoking ban may be in Calgary, AB, or maybe all of AB, not sure. I went there for game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals a few years ago. Ended up scalping our pair of tickets to the game for 6 grand, and watched the game on their 'Red Mile' in a bar. Ok, so in Calgary you can not smoke on the bar's patio. You can't smoke outside, you have to smoke inside. Is that the stupidest thing you've ever heard? That bar was sooo smoke filled and gross I wish we had just kept the tickets and went to the game, 6 grand be damned. The law was passed because it had something about not wanting to pollute the environment, even though two thirds of the populattion drives a Ford f350 that spew black exhast. dumbass cowboys...lol Oh yeah... Flames suck. -- Kurt M. (beerboy) " S m o k e w e e d e v e r y d a y "   Date: 12 Dec 2006 07:18:05 From: syncbus@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Here is the simple reason smoking should be banned from all public places, and since you're so interested in "rights" I'm going to include that topic in my point: "Individual freedoms extend right up to the point that they infringe upon other individual's freedoms." That's it, plain and simple. The smokers right to stink up the place stops right at the point that non-smokers come into contact with the smoke, since that can't be controlled to a point that non-smokers are fully protected then the right of the smoker to smoke is stopped. It's interesting that smokers are the first to scream about their right to smoke while ignoring the fact that their act of smoking is infringing on the rights of every non-smoker around them. Mike D. Follow wrote: > I was gone for a few days and didn't get a chance to put in an opinion on > this... > > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government. I agree > with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to > choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room. What's funny is that most > smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are exactly > the opposite. > > As it stands without bans on smoking in private establishments such as bars and > restaurants; we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments > and owners have the choice of making it one or the other. There is no law on > the books, nor has there ever been a law requiring an establishment to have a > smoking area available. But now, we are talking about a law forbidding a > smoking area and somehow decide that this is a vote for more liberty? I don't > think so. > > I find it curious that I see "Republicans" like Irish Mike on this topic > sounding off on a smoking ban. Aren't "Republicans" supposed to be interested > in property rights and the soveriegnty of that ownership? Are you only a > "Republican" when it doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities? It's quite > simple, you don't like being around smokers, you don't enter a restaurant or bar > which permits smoking and take your grievance to the owner(s) of said > establishment. I thought only Democrats passed frivolous laws to suit their own > comfort. > > Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and > bar smoking ban took effect. The loophole was that these "clubs" required > membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant > or bar and were not impacted by the law. Nearly every bar in Utah and some > restaurants turned into "private clubs." There were however others that did > not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a > choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking establishment. > How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices. You want to smoke, here > is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. > > That changed this year when legislators decided that smoking clubs were still > evil and possibly breaking god's law, and passed more legislation disallowing > even the private clubs from allowing smoking. Now we have no more choice, no > smoking and non-smoking clubs, nothing, just a bunch of "smoke-free" everythings > with a group of people with the audacity to say they're on the side of > "freedom." I would venture so far as to say they are fighters for "comfort" but > definitely a little bit on the facist side as far as "freedom" is concerned. > > Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because of > this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will. There is a > bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to > drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do. Soon (the law hasn't taken > effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of > continued competition. It's over for them. > > Besides all of the property concerns, most of the anti-smoking crowd should > already be well aware of how bunk their "evidence" is regarding second hand > smoke. Every study up until recently has relied on the EPA study entitled > "EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other > Disorders." Including the studies by WHO and the BMA which titled their studies > with very scary names, and discussed how evil the dangers of second hand smoke > were. They also believed that since their study was so long and filled with > pointless graphs and ridiculous hyperbole and posturing, that no one would > notice little lines like these in the middle of the report: > > "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to > environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and > before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant > associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, > 1973-85, and 1973-98. > > This was a 30 year study, the longest and most tedious ever performed. This is > also a study by the BMA who, by their own words say things like this: > > "The BMA has long supported legislation to ban smoking in public places as a > necessary step in combating the dangers of second-hand smoke to non-smokers. > Some progress has been made." > > These guys are an anti-smoking lobby group, who conducted the longest study on > second hand smoke EVER performed, and they found "NO SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION" > but still they persist in trying to ban smoking and putting out studies with > information inside them saying there is no significant association, but titling > them with names like: "second-hand smoke represents a substantial public health > hazard." > > The EPA study (which all other secondhand smoke studies are based on) was tossed > out by not only Judge William Osteen > (http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm), but also tossed out > by the CRS (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm) Congressional > Research Service for those who aren't aware. Both Judge Osteen and the CRS > called the EPA study "unscientific" and described their data as "cherry picked." > > So voting for or supporting legislation that bans smoking in private businesses > in America is not a vote for freedom, nor a vote for health. It is at best a > vote for comfort and a vote to callously disregard the comfort and freedom of > others. > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 2006 09:47:30 From: bjgkaraoke@aol.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Susan wrote: > <syncbus@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165941998.755022.196780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > It's not as simple as that because business owners try to cater to > > smokers and non-smokers and end up with one section that's "really > > smokey" and another section that's "partially smokey". > > > > so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare > smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. Enforce signage > outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. > > Simple That has never worked. Only a total ban in public places works. I'm still here only because I quit smoking over 25 years ago and don't ever go into a smoking environment. Of course, I also have good medical care and medications that keep me going. When the casinos were still allowing smoking, I'd often come home with chest pain, a sore throat, and a headache. Of course, I wasn't forced to go there to play poker, but that was my only source of income. Thanks to the ban, I'm still here, still playing poker, and still posting on rgp. So, you guys will just have to deal with it.:) My family is grateful, too, since I'm still around to nag them and give them plenty of unsolicited advice. I hope to be around for a few more years, too. My life will change, but I'm hoping I'll still be able to function well enough to enjoy it. Barbara Gallamore       Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:01:00 From: Susan Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... <bjgkaraoke@aol.com > wrote in message news:1165945650.497997.254560@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > That has never worked. Only a total ban in public places works. When has it ever been tried? I've seen non-smoking sections, etc., but never a restaurant or bar or card room that has a sign that says outside either "smoke free environment" or "smoking allowed here".         Date: 12 Dec 18:13:17 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 11:00 AM, Susan wrote: > When has it ever been tried? I've seen non-smoking sections, etc., but > never a restaurant or bar or card room that has a sign that says outside > either "smoke free environment" or "smoking allowed here". I have, it worked wonderfully here in Utah.  We had smoking establishments and non-smoking ones, and people were able to choose where they went.  I never went to the smoking restaurants because they weren't kept up well, but I applauded their effort to preserve people's right to choose.  I can't even imagine going to a bar that is non-smoking, the idea is just stupid to me.  But, there were bars that were non-smoking here in Utah as well, they had patrons who prefered a non-smoking environment and it worked well. I don't understand why choice is so anathema to these people... Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 2006 09:30:02 From: syncbus@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... > so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare > smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. Enforce signage > outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. > > Simple That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up doing poorly in terms of air quality. Why do smokers think they have the right to go inside wherever they please and foul every non-smokers meal, clothes, or evening like it's their God given privilege? I can't tell you how many times I've been at a restaurant where nobody is smoking only to have a single smoker light up. If it were a smokey bar then it's fair game, but damn I've been places where nobody was smoking and a single smoker has the balls to light up regardless of families around them and puff away without a care. It must suck to be stuck on something so repulsive that you lose your basic respect for others around you. Mike D. Susan wrote: > <syncbus@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165941998.755022.196780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > It's not as simple as that because business owners try to cater to > > smokers and non-smokers and end up with one section that's "really > > smokey" and another section that's "partially smokey". > > > > so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare > smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. Enforce signage > outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. > > Simple       Date: 12 Dec 2006 09:59:36 From: bjgkaraoke@aol.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > On Dec 12 2006 10:30 AM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > > > That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily > > capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up > > doing poorly in terms of air quality. > > > > Why do smokers think they have the right to go inside wherever they > > please and foul every non-smokers meal, clothes, or evening like it's > > their God given privilege? > > > > I can't tell you how many times I've been at a restaurant where nobody > > is smoking only to have a single smoker light up. If it were a smokey > > bar then it's fair game, but damn I've been places where nobody was > > smoking and a single smoker has the balls to light up regardless of > > families around them and puff away without a care. > > > > It must suck to be stuck on something so repulsive that you lose your > > basic respect for others around you. > > > > Mike D. > > I would consider writing a complicated rebuttal to your arguments, but what's > the point when you haven't read a word until this point? In any case, when your > comprehension comes up to par feel free to rejoin the discussion. I absolutely > refuse to give you a cohesive reply to an argument that has already been > addressed and you're simply ignoring. > > > > > Follow :) You're nothing if not persistent, Follow, even though the battle you're waging is already lost. If fact, places are now going non-smoking that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. When I read that pubs in Ireland were made non-smoking, I was amazed. Have you noticed you're the almost the only person defending your position? The only other people on your side are the usual right-wing wackos. Well, if all of you still smoke, your side will be reduced by attrition soon enough. Take care, Barbara Gallamore         Date: 12 Dec 18:17:17 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 10:59 AM, bjgkaraoke@aol.com wrote: > You're nothing if not persistent, Follow, even though the battle you're > waging is already lost. > If fact, places are now going non-smoking that would have been > unthinkable only a few years ago. When I read that pubs in Ireland > were made non-smoking, I was amazed. > > Have you noticed you're the almost the only person defending your > position? The only other people on your side are the usual right-wing > wackos. Well, if all of you still smoke, your side will be reduced by > attrition soon enough. > > Take care, > Barbara Gallamore I'm glad you survived, really I am.  But I don't see why the choices you've made in your life make you feel qualified to pass judgment and make choices for other people.  If they want to kill themselves smoking, then who are you to tell them they can't?  Certainly you can tell them your story and explain the error of their choices and I'm sure they would benefit from that, but forcing them to make your choices because it's better for them is not the way to go. I've been in cardrooms that are smoking, and those that are non-smoking in the same city.  People have the choice of which to visit.  I went to a non-smoking cardroom because of the game selection there when there was a smoking one I could visit and would have prefered.  I make my choices, I would prefer entering a smoking cardroom (for a variety of reasons besides having a smoke myself), so why do I no longer get that choice even if the owner of said cardroom wants to allow it? It's quite simple to let everyone live happily and peacefully without forcing opinions and morals down the throats of everyone else. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:52:17 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: ... > I've been in cardrooms that are smoking, and those that are non-smoking in the > same city. People have the choice of which to visit. I went to a non-smoking > cardroom because of the game selection there when there was a smoking one I > could visit and would have prefered. I make my choices, I would prefer entering > a smoking cardroom (for a variety of reasons besides having a smoke myself), so > why do I no longer get that choice even if the owner of said cardroom wants to > allow it? > > It's quite simple to let everyone live happily and peacefully without forcing > opinions and morals down the throats of everyone else. You have it backwards, as do all of those who rant about "smokers rights" and rights of businesses to allow smoking. It is those who smoke in public places who are forcing their toxins down the throats (and noses) of everyone around them. It is not only the proper role of government to prevent that, it is the duty of government to prevent that. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range             Date: 12 Dec 22:00:02 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 2:52 PM, Joe Long wrote: > You have it backwards, as do all of those who rant about "smokers > rights" and rights of businesses to allow smoking. It is those who > smoke in public places who are forcing their toxins down the throats > (and noses) of everyone around them. It is not only the proper role of > government to prevent that, it is the duty of government to prevent that. > > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range You have a skewed view of "government duty." Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:42:07 From: Peg Smith Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote: >I've been in cardrooms that are smoking, and those that are non-smoking in the >same city.  People have the choice of which to visit.  In that city they have the choice; in most cities, they don't. That's the problem, Follow. Peg             Date: 12 Dec 2006 19:52:03 From: beerboy Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... In news:mf1un2pu9eer0isqvc77lt1rrr683e048n@4ax.com, Peg Smith <PegSmithNow@aol.comnojunk > typed:         Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:41:02 From: Peg Smith Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... "bjgkaraoke@aol.com" <bjgkaraoke@aol.com > wrote: >Have you noticed you're the almost the only person defending your >position? The only other people on your side are the usual right-wing >wackos. That isn't necessary true. I'm not a right-wing wacko, and I'm on his side. I don't think the government should be able to tell a restaurant owner that he can't allow smoking on his premises. I agree with Follow that those who don't like to smoke shouldn't go into those establishments. The problem is that people are so goddamn stupid. The bar/restaurant/casino owners think it's more important to cater to smokers than nonsmokers, even though smokers are hugely outnumbered in the marketplace. So there are few, if any, options for nonsmokers when they want to go out for a meal or a drink. Now, you'd think that with all of the states passing these laws that the owners in the "smoking" states would wise up and try to remedy the situation *before* their states get the "no smoking" law; but, no, they're idiots. So the non-smokers (the majority) raise enough hell to get these laws passed. And as much as I don't think it's Constitutional, there are just too many other, worse, government fuck-ups to worry about for me to get all hot and bothered over this one. I just think the non-smokers should have raised hell with the business owners -- in very large numbers, to make damned sure they were heard -- instead of with the legislators. Peg           Date: 12 Dec 19:56:21 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 12:41 PM, Peg Smith wrote: > That isn't necessary true. I'm not a right-wing wacko, and I'm on his > side. I don't know what right-wing wacko means, am I one?  I would have always considered myself a "middle-wing" wacko if anything.  I mean which wing do Libertarians fall into?  I would say they fall closer to the right....  Maybe I am a right wing wacko...  :P Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:59:23 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > I don't know what right-wing wacko means, am I one? I would have always > considered myself a "middle-wing" wacko if anything. I mean which wing do > Libertarians fall into? I would say they fall closer to the right.... Maybe I > am a right wing wacko... :P I'm of the libertarian philosophy, although a registered Republican for tactical reasons. Nevertheless, I strongly support smoking bans. If protecting the majority from having the common air fouled by a minority of addicts is not a legitimate function of government, then what is? -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range               Date: 12 Dec 22:06:39 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 3:00 PM, Joe Long wrote: > I'm of the libertarian philosophy, although a registered Republican for > tactical reasons. Nevertheless, I strongly support smoking bans. If > protecting the majority from having the common air fouled by a minority > of addicts is not a legitimate function of government, then what is? > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range The legitimate function of government IS to protect the rights of the people, paramount to that protection is property rights.  Without property rights, we have nothing. Why should the owner of a restaurant or other establishment not have the right to allow whatever legal activities they choose in their establishment?  What if the law were that they couldn't disallow smoking?  Would you be ok with that?  Of course not, so why not allow choice and liberty? You might like it if a restaurant chose to be non-smoking, and that's great, we all have our preferences.  It's forcing them to live by your preferences that denies liberty. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 12 Dec 2006 17:57:05 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 12 2006 3:00 PM, Joe Long wrote: > >> I'm of the libertarian philosophy, although a registered Republican for >> tactical reasons. Nevertheless, I strongly support smoking bans. If >> protecting the majority from having the common air fouled by a minority >> of addicts is not a legitimate function of government, then what is? >> >> >> -- >> Joe Long aka ChipRider >> Somewhere on the Range > > The legitimate function of government IS to protect the rights of the people, > paramount to that protection is property rights. Without property rights, we > have nothing. We pretty much agree on that. I've never considered property rights as "inferior" to human rights, as property rights ARE human rights -- the rights of the owners of the property. However, it is long established in law, including in the U.S., that you do not have unlimited rights to do with your property anything that you want when what you do affects other people. > Why should the owner of a restaurant or other establishment not have the right > to allow whatever legal activities they choose in their establishment? What if > the law were that they couldn't disallow smoking? Would you be ok with that? > Of course not, so why not allow choice and liberty? Aww, c'mon. There are many things that are legal to do in some places that are not legal to do places of public accommodation such as a restaurant. Taking a crap, for an example (other than in a designated restroom). Or spitting on someone's plate. And in many jurisdictions, smoking. Just because something is not outlawed everywhere does not imply a right to do it anywhere. That whole "any legal activities that they choose" begs the question anyway. When a smoking ban is passed, smoking there is NOT legal, so the concept of their having the right to permit "any legal activity" does not apply. > You might like it if a restaurant chose to be non-smoking, and that's great, we > all have our preferences. It's forcing them to live by your preferences that > denies liberty. Well, as to preferences, that's called democracy, and the 80% of us who do not smoke are finally saying "ENOUGH!" to the 20% who do and who foul our air in the process. However, this isn't just about preferences. What specifically makes it RIGHT for government to regulate where you can smoke in public is that smoking in confined places is a form of ASSAULT. The smoke put into the common air by a smoker makes its way into the lungs (and eyes, hair and clothing) of every person in the room. And one of the most important things government does is protect people from assault -- that's what it's for. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                   Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 5:57 PM, Joe Long wrote:  > We pretty much agree on that. I've never considered property rights as > "inferior" to human rights, as property rights ARE human rights -- the > rights of the owners of the property. However, it is long established > in law, including in the U.S., that you do not have unlimited rights to > do with your property anything that you want when what you do affects > other people. Only if it affects them without their consent.  How hard is it to assume that a person entering a place where smoking is clearly permitted is giving consent to be in such a situation? > Aww, c'mon. There are many things that are legal to do in some places > that are not legal to do places of public accommodation such as a > restaurant. Taking a crap, for an example (other than in a designated > restroom). Or spitting on someone's plate. And in many jurisdictions, > smoking. Just because something is not outlawed everywhere does not > imply a right to do it anywhere. There are certain places (clubs and such) where doing the other things you describe is perfectly legal outside of the (commonly accepted) designated areas.  Are you saying that a person entering a club with the intention of participating in these activities (with the consent of the owner and the participants of said activity) should be barred from it because others believe it to be inappropriate?  It's the same with smoking, it's not ok to do it EVERYWHERE, but when a property owner designates an area for it, then it's fine to do in THAT area, much like defecating.  If the property owner does not allow smoking in their building at all, they're certainly free to do that as well.  If the property owner allows it anywhere on their property they wish, you say they shouldn't be able to do that either? I know the BDSM scene in this country would be highly critical of your approach to government as well.   > Well, as to preferences, that's called democracy, and the 80% of us who > do not smoke are finally saying "ENOUGH!" to the 20% who do and who foul > our air in the process. However, this isn't just about preferences. > What specifically makes it RIGHT for government to regulate where you > can smoke in public is that smoking in confined places is a form of > ASSAULT. The smoke put into the common air by a smoker makes its way > into the lungs (and eyes, hair and clothing) of every person in the > room. And one of the most important things government does is protect > people from assault -- that's what it's for. > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range Assault?  You know what I find to be one of the most incredible behaviors of people discussing politics, Joe?  Most of us are very Libertarian until something offends our sensibilities, then we don't give a shit whose rights we stomp in the process of getting our way.  Those who have accepted the Libertarian paradigm say things like "I'm Libertarian on all issues except..." and those who haven't will just prove their Libertarian way of thinking on other issues.  When online poker gets taken away, a whole angry mob of poker players showed up here to talk about what bullshit this "father knows best" government was and how horrible it was they were doing this to us.  But then it comes to the smoking issue and the same people have changed their tune to "the people have spoken." The hypocrasy is thick. I try hard to keep objectivity in mind.  I want government cut back in all arenas, whether I'm involved in the particular target of their facism that day or I'm not, I don't care.  I'll always fight for the side of liberty whether it's my fight or it isn't.  If ever my views are inconsistent with the interests of liberty, I'll modify them as soon as it's pointed out to me.  But I've been doing this for a long time, so it might be difficult to find any now... Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:42:24 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 12 2006 5:57 PM, Joe Long wrote: > >> We pretty much agree on that. I've never considered property rights as >> "inferior" to human rights, as property rights ARE human rights -- the >> rights of the owners of the property. However, it is long established >> in law, including in the U.S., that you do not have unlimited rights to >> do with your property anything that you want when what you do affects >> other people. > > Only if it affects them without their consent. How hard is it to assume that a > person entering a place where smoking is clearly permitted is giving consent to > be in such a situation? First of all, that is not the case. Consent often makes no difference. And when every poker room in town allows smoking, how do play poker without giving the kind of "consent" you talk about? >> Aww, c'mon. There are many things that are legal to do in some places >> that are not legal to do places of public accommodation such as a >> restaurant. Taking a crap, for an example (other than in a designated >> restroom). Or spitting on someone's plate. And in many jurisdictions, >> smoking. Just because something is not outlawed everywhere does not >> imply a right to do it anywhere. > > There are certain places (clubs and such) where doing the other things you > describe is perfectly legal outside of the (commonly accepted) designated > areas. Are you saying that a person entering a club with the intention of > participating in these activities (with the consent of the owner and the > participants of said activity) should be barred from it because others believe > it to be inappropriate? It's the same with smoking, it's not ok to do it > EVERYWHERE, but when a property owner designates an area for it, then it's fine > to do in THAT area, much like defecating. If the property owner does not allow > smoking in their building at all, they're certainly free to do that as well. If > the property owner allows it anywhere on their property they wish, you say they > shouldn't be able to do that either? > > I know the BDSM scene in this country would be highly critical of your approach > to government as well. I have no problem with truly private clubs being exempt from a smoking ban. Meaning, clubs with some common interest, some requirements for membership other than paying a fee, and where you pay significant monthly (or quarterly or annual) dues to be a member. >> Well, as to preferences, that's called democracy, and the 80% of us who >> do not smoke are finally saying "ENOUGH!" to the 20% who do and who foul >> our air in the process. However, this isn't just about preferences. >> What specifically makes it RIGHT for government to regulate where you >> can smoke in public is that smoking in confined places is a form of >> ASSAULT. The smoke put into the common air by a smoker makes its way >> into the lungs (and eyes, hair and clothing) of every person in the >> room. And one of the most important things government does is protect >> people from assault -- that's what it's for. >> >> >> -- >> Joe Long aka ChipRider >> Somewhere on the Range > > Assault? You know what I find to be one of the most incredible behaviors of > people discussing politics, Joe? Most of us are very Libertarian until > something offends our sensibilities, then we don't give a shit whose rights we > stomp in the process of getting our way. Those who have accepted the > Libertarian paradigm say things like "I'm Libertarian on all issues except..." > and those who haven't will just prove their Libertarian way of thinking on other > issues. When online poker gets taken away, a whole angry mob of poker players > showed up here to talk about what bullshit this "father knows best" government > was and how horrible it was they were doing this to us. But then it comes to > the smoking issue and the same people have changed their tune to "the people > have spoken." > > The hypocrasy is thick. I'm not saying "I'm a libertarian on all issues but..." I am pointing out that smoking bans are consistent with libertarian philosophy because the laws are protecting people from assault by others. Your comparison to laws against gambling are false. No matter how much you may gamble, you are not assualting me. Unless you rob me at gunpoint to get money to gamble, and that's been illegal for a long time. > I try hard to keep objectivity in mind. I want government cut back in all > arenas, whether I'm involved in the particular target of their facism that day > or I'm not, I don't care. I'll always fight for the side of liberty whether > it's my fight or it isn't. If ever my views are inconsistent with the interests > of liberty, I'll modify them as soon as it's pointed out to me. But I've been > doing this for a long time, so it might be difficult to find any now... Smoking bans enhance liberty in a community by freeing people from having their air fouled by an addicted minority. Please remember that anarchy is not liberty at all. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                       Date: 14 Dec 20:45:51 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 13 2006 9:43 PM, Joe Long wrote:  > First of all, that is not the case. Consent often makes no difference. > And when every poker room in town allows smoking, how do play poker > without giving the kind of "consent" you talk about? They choose to enter the room.  They give consent.  How hard is that?  Is my consent implied that I might be getting wet if I walk into a community pool area?  Or would I be justified in saying that I had no idea I was going to get wet? Just because all have chosen to be a particular way doesn't mean you aren't giving your consent by going there.  You sure sound powerless for a Libertarian.  Don't like a business owner's policy, how hard is it to go someplace else or refrain from entering that type of business until one of your liking shows up?  Instead you use the force of government to make owners do your bidding at the point of a gun. > I have no problem with truly private clubs being exempt from a smoking > ban. Meaning, clubs with some common interest, some requirements for > membership other than paying a fee, and where you pay significant > monthly (or quarterly or annual) dues to be a member. Why does it have to meet all of your weird requirements so that a business owner can allow smoking?  You're telling me that paying fees and clear signs while you have clear alternatives of places you can go that are smoke free aren't enough for you?  So if all the clubs on my block say 5 of them are non smoking and I open a 6th down the street which caters to smokers it should be shut down?  I have clear signage all over it saying "smokers and smoke friendly non-smokers welcome," and it's down the street and away from the other 5 clubs, all of which are smoke free and the smoke doesn't bother them directly. By your logic, you're saying that my club should be shut down.  My club down the street shouldn't be allowed to cater to its customer base because it offends you that we're doing such things down there.  > I'm not saying "I'm a libertarian on all issues but..." I am pointing > out that smoking bans are consistent with libertarian philosophy because > the laws are protecting people from assault by others. The assault angle is absolutely ridiculous.  The fact of the matter is that you've chosen to enter a building where smoking is occuring, you do not HAVE to enter the building.  You have a choice, whether it's the only poker room in town, or the only restaurant in town, you have a very clear CHOICE whether you enter the building or you don't.  There is no one forcing you into the building and "assaulting" you in any way.  It's akin to picking up my fist, banging yourself in the face with it, and accusing me of battery.  It's beyond insanity. I'm sure you consider alcoholism to be a disease too. > Your comparison to laws against gambling are false. No matter how much > you may gamble, you are not assualting me. Unless you rob me at > gunpoint to get money to gamble, and that's been illegal for a long time. Why?  Plenty of people consider gambling a senseless loss as well.  They think playing poker is no better than flipping coins, and it's no different than robbing someone at gunpoint.  That's why we have gambling laws, Joe, many people consider your passtime just as nasty as you consider other people's. The fact that you would so defensively differentiate should be more than enough to wake you up, but I can't imagine it will.  Take a step back and think about this stuff rationally. > Smoking bans enhance liberty in a community by freeing people from > having their air fouled by an addicted minority. Craziness.  Enhance liberty by forcing a property owner to do as you please instead of what he pleases on his property because you believe you should be able to enter it at will and give him instructions.  Remember, this is property that you haven't paid a penny for or toward, and that you have absolutely no just cause to enter the place if you don't specifically choose to by your own accord. I'm just absolutely dumbstruck by your arguments thus far Joe.  I've never met a single person anywhere that has argued the property rights angle like you are.  Most supporters of the bans realize very clearly that it's a violation of property rights, but one they consider necessary.  Not a one of them has told me that it enhances liberty and protects them from "assault." > Please remember that anarchy is not liberty at all. Anarchy is actually the very highest form of liberty.  But humanity just isn't ready for it and probably will never be.  It's not that I'm not an anarchist because I think it's bad, I just think it won't work.  But I have lots of sympathy for the anarchist cause (not the anarchist/communists they can go die, real anarchists) at least they're in the right direction. > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                         Date: 14 Dec 2006 22:18:44 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1166129151$921882@recpoker.com: > On Dec 13 2006 9:43 PM, Joe Long wrote:ÿ > >> First of all, that is not the case. Consent often makes no >> difference. And when every poker room in town allows smoking, how do >> play poker without giving the kind of "consent" you talk about? > > They choose to enter the room.ÿ They give consent.ÿ How hard is that?ÿ > Is my consent implied that I might be getting wet if I walk into a > community pool area?ÿ Or would I be justified in saying that I had no > idea I was going to get wet? Just like you, Mr. Libertarian, obviously give your consent to things like income taxes because you choose to remain living in the USA, right? RIGHT? David                           Date: 14 Dec 22:34:51 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 14 2006 3:18 PM, David Kehler wrote: > Just like you, Mr. Libertarian, obviously give your consent to things like > income taxes because you choose to remain living in the USA, right? RIGHT? > > David Continued living in the country of my birth is different from going into a restaurant.  But I'm sure you can't possibly give me any of the thousands of distinctions between the two.  Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                             Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:38:18 From: FL Turbo Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Thu, 14 Dec 06 22:34:51 GMT, Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote: > > > >On Dec 14 2006 3:18 PM, David Kehler wrote: > >> Just like you, Mr. Libertarian, obviously give your consent to things like >> income taxes because you choose to remain living in the USA, right? RIGHT? >> >> David > >Continued living in the country of my birth is different from going into a >restaurant.  But I'm sure you can't possibly give me any of the thousands of >distinctions between the two.  > In the subject of smoking bans, I am continually amazed how people who call themselves Libertarians are so willing to defend the Government's "right" to limit the liberty of its citizens.                             Date: 14 Dec 2006 23:08:04 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1166135691$921941@recpoker.com: > > > > On Dec 14 2006 3:18 PM, David Kehler wrote: > >> Just like you, Mr. Libertarian, obviously give your consent to things >> like income taxes because you choose to remain living in the USA, >> right? RIGHT? >> >> David > > Continued living in the country of my birth is different from going > into a restaurant.  But I'm sure you can't possibly give me any of the > thousands of distinctions between the two.  > > > > > Follow  :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com > > Why don't you humour me and list a few? David                               Date: 14 Dec 23:32:12 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 14 2006 4:08 PM, David Kehler wrote: > Why don't you humour me and list a few? > > David Here are a few quickies: 1.  I own property in this country and have options to buy more. 2.  I have the right to vote for those officials who make the rules, they speak with my voice. 3.  They have documents disallowing them certain courses of action and guaranteeing my rights. 4.  I have just as much right to be here as any other citizen. 5.  Etc.... To break it down for you, just the listed above apply solely to living in a country and not to dining in a restaurant.  To give it to you point by point.... You do not own any property in someone else's restaurant, nor do you have the option to purchase any.  You do not elect restaurant owners, nor do you have liberties to try voting a new owner in.  If you are not satisfied with the owner of a restaurant, your recourse is to leave, not impeach.  You are not even so much as guaranteed service in a restaurant.  Nor do you have as much right to be on their property as anyone else.  Let's keep playing kindergarten games and make wild comparisons that are completely unfounded in any sort of reality besides perhaps an LSD induced hallucination in some effort to discredit my position as hypocritical since you can't seem to argue against it.  That's a great use of time. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com                                 Date: 15 Dec 2006 00:31:34 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... We were talking about implied consent due to choosing to being in a particular place at a particular time. Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1166139132$921961@recpoker.com: > > > > On Dec 14 2006 4:08 PM, David Kehler wrote: > >> Why don't you humour me and list a few? >> >> David > > Here are a few quickies: > > 1.  I own property in this country and have options to buy more. You choose to own property in a country that doesn't live up to your libertarian ideals. No one forced you to purchase property in the US. That implies consent of government policies, according to your logic. After all, you could always move somewhere else or go off and live off the land in the countryside somewhere where you won't have to pay any taxes. > 2.  I have the right to vote for those officials who make the rules, > they speak with my voice. Well, so does everyone else who is a citizen of your country, and they are obviously voting for officials that have chosen to value the rights of people to breathe cleaner air over property rights. I guess you'll have to try to change it (not likely) or deal with it. Hail democracy! > 3.  They have documents disallowing them certain courses of action and > guaranteeing my rights. Okay. > 4.  I have just as much right to be here as any other citizen. People have a right to not have the air around them polluted by others' habits. You can tell the non-smokers to stay home if they don't like it, and they can tell you to do likewise. We can go round and round. But you'll never convince me that property rights should automatically supercede the rights of people to have a safe and inclusive environment. Don't tell me you're one of those kooks that thinks that business owners should be able to refuse service to people because of the colour of their skin, because after all, it's their business. What a wonderful world that would be. And no, the free market isn't a magical entity that rights all wrongs. If it's not "cost effective" to provide services for people with disabilities, for example, it doesn't get done, thereby relegating those people to second-class citizen status, which is unacceptable to me, and hopefully, most. Business owners have a different standard to live up to than mere "property owners", as they should. There's a whole host of rules and regulations that businesses have to operate by to ensure the safety of their employees and customers. A smoking ban would just be another one, and a welcome one at that. For far too long, the situation was reversed, where non-smokers had to literally suck it up in order to be able to go out just about anywhere. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it's about time. The same debates rage on in every community when a smoking ban is first introduced, but after the dust settles, the businesses survive, thrive even, and even some of the smokers come to appreciate the difference that being able to breathe clean air makes. It's only a matter of time. > 5.  Etc.... > > To break it down for you, just the listed above apply solely to living > in a country and not to dining in a restaurant.  To give it to you > point by point.... > > You do not own any property in someone else's restaurant, nor do you > have the option to purchase any.  You do not elect restaurant owners, > nor do you have liberties to try voting a new owner in.  If you are > not satisfied with the owner of a restaurant, your recourse is to > leave, not impeach.  You are not even so much as guaranteed service in > a restaurant.  Nor do you have as much right to be on their property > as anyone else.  > > Let's keep playing kindergarten games and make wild comparisons that > are completely unfounded in any sort of reality besides perhaps an LSD > induced hallucination in some effort to discredit my position as > hypocritical since you can't seem to argue against it.  That's a great > use of time. I'll quit playing kindergarten games when libertarians stop trying to make everything so ridiculously, childishly simple to fit into their way thinking when the real world just doesn't operate that way. David                                   Date: 15 Dec 2006 01:21:57 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... David Kehler;1009543 Wrote: > We were talking about implied consent due to choosing to being in a > particular place at a particular time. > > Follow <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in > news:1166139132$921961@recpoker.com: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14 2006 4:08 PM, David Kehler wrote: > > > >> Why don't you humour me and list a few? > >> > >> David > > > > Here are a few quickies: > > > > 1.  I own property in this country and have options to buy more. > > You choose to own property in a country that doesn't live up to your > libertarian ideals. No one forced you to purchase property in the US. > That implies consent of government policies, according to your logic. > After all, you could always move somewhere else or go off and live off > the land in the countryside somewhere where you won't have to pay any > taxes. > > > 2.  I have the right to vote for those officials who make the rules, > > they speak with my voice. > > Well, so does everyone else who is a citizen of your country, and they > are obviously voting for officials that have chosen to value the > rights > of people to breathe cleaner air over property rights. I guess you'll > have to try to change it (not likely) or deal with it. Hail > democracy! > > > 3.  They have documents disallowing them certain courses of action > and > > guaranteeing my rights. > > Okay. > > > 4.  I have just as much right to be here as any other citizen. > > People have a right to not have the air around them polluted by > others' > habits. You can tell the non-smokers to stay home if they don't like > it, > and they can tell you to do likewise. We can go round and round. But > you'll never convince me that property rights should automatically > supercede the rights of people to have a safe and inclusive > environment. > Don't tell me you're one of those kooks that thinks that business > owners > should be able to refuse service to people because of the colour of > their > skin, because after all, it's their business. What a wonderful world > that would be. Lol! I was wondering what was keeping this anti American racist douchebag so long from playing the race card...and there it is. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                                   Date: 15 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 14 2006 5:31 PM, David Kehler wrote: > We were talking about implied consent due to choosing to being in a > particular place at a particular time. Right, living in a country is completely similar to choosing to walk into a restaurant.  I'll just defer to your superior logic.  Congratulations. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                                     Date: 15 Dec 2006 01:24:11 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1166144896$921998@recpoker.com: > On Dec 14 2006 5:31 PM, David Kehler wrote: > >> We were talking about implied consent due to choosing to being in a >> particular place at a particular time. > > Right, living in a country is completely similar to choosing to walk > into a restaurant.ÿ I'll just defer to your superior logic.ÿ > > Congratulations. > > > > > Followÿ :) No, I didn't think you could come up with a suitable response. David                                       Date: 15 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 14 2006 6:24 PM, David Kehler wrote: > No, I didn't think you could come up with a suitable response. > > David I gave you a suitable response, but somehow you're still seeing living a country as equal to entering a restaurant.  I don't know how to respond to such a complete lapse of logic beyond what I've already given you.  So you'll pardon me if I don't want to waste my time discussing such ridiculous fallacies, I'd rather just dismiss them and move on to something useful. But you can chalk one up for yourself if it makes you feel better.  I don't think anyone else that might be reading up until this point is fooled. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com                                         Date: 15 Dec 2006 04:00:30 From: David Kehler Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in news:1166150863$922031@recpoker.com: > > > > On Dec 14 2006 6:24 PM, David Kehler wrote: > >> No, I didn't think you could come up with a suitable response. >> >> David > > I gave you a suitable response, but somehow you're still seeing living > a country as equal to entering a restaurant.  I never claimed that they were "equal". You're just being intellectually dishonest now. It was, however, an analogy that was perfectly valid. Sure, it may be more difficult for you to live off the land or leave the country than it would be for me to open up a non-smoking restaurant, but the analogy holds. You just don't like it because it exposes your hypocrisy. > I don't know how to > respond to such a complete lapse of logic beyond what I've already > given you.  So you'll pardon me if I don't want to waste my time > discussing such ridiculous fallacies, I'd rather just dismiss them and > move on to something useful. Yes, just dismiss all the other points that I brought up because you didn't like my initial analogy. A cynical person would think that maybe it's because you couldn't refute them. Good strategy on your part. > > But you can chalk one up for yourself if it makes you feel better.  I > don't think anyone else that might be reading up until this point is > fooled. > No, that's the way that "Travel" does things; that is, yelp like a little dog about his "victories" when he's offered nothing but rhetoric. He reminds me of an annoying insect that both sides of the discussion wish would be squashed. David                                           Date: 15 Dec 2006 07:23:25 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... David Kehler;1009609 Wrote: > Follow <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in > news:1166150863$922031@recpoker.com: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14 2006 6:24 PM, David Kehler wrote: > > > >> No, I didn't think you could come up with a suitable response. > >> > >> David > > > > I gave you a suitable response, but somehow you're still seeing > living > > a country as equal to entering a restaurant.  > > I never claimed that they were "equal". You're just being > intellectually > dishonest now. It was, however, an analogy that was perfectly valid. > Sure, it may be more difficult for you to live off the land or leave > the > country than it would be for me to open up a non-smoking restaurant, > but > the analogy holds. You just don't like it because it exposes your > hypocrisy. > > > I don't know how to > > respond to such a complete lapse of logic beyond what I've already > > given you.  So you'll pardon me if I don't want to waste my time > > discussing such ridiculous fallacies, I'd rather just dismiss them > and > > move on to something useful. > > Yes, just dismiss all the other points that I brought up because you > didn't like my initial analogy. A cynical person would think that > maybe > it's because you couldn't refute them. Good strategy on your part. > > > > > > > > > > But you can chalk one up for yourself if it makes you feel better.  > I > > don't think anyone else that might be reading up until this point is > > fooled. > > > > No, that's the way that "Travel" does things; that is, yelp like a > little > dog about his "victories" when he's offered nothing but rhetoric. He > reminds me of an annoying insect that both sides of the discussion > wish > would be squashed. > > David That's right, no one is fooled by this "David Koeler". The funny part is, he rattles so easily when faced with the simple facts of a matter. When his joke "arguments" and endless prattlings are so easily destroyed he tries to pretend that, well, he's just too damn deep for everyone else, and no one else "gets it", lol! He's just an idiot towing the liberal "party line" like a chimp. It doesn't matter the subject, he's pissed, he's bitter, and he's a proud communist. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                                       Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:09:28 From: Travel Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... David Kehler;1009560 Wrote: > Follow <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in > news:1166144896$921998@recpoker.com: > > > On Dec 14 2006 5:31 PM, David Kehler wrote: > > > >> We were talking about implied consent due to choosing to being in a > >> particular place at a particular time. > > > > Right, living in a country is completely similar to choosing to walk > > into a restaurant.ÿ I'll just defer to your superior logic.ÿ > > > > Congratulations. > > > > > > > > > > Followÿ :) > > No, I didn't think you could come up with a suitable response. > > David On the contrary, your gibberish wasn't suitable. It's not a typing contest of who can type the most words per post; it's quality not quantity. The fact of the matter is, smoking bans are an attack on private property and there's there's zero proof that second hand smoke is harmful. That takes away any argument in favor of smoking bans on private property. Smoking bans are bad legislation, and bad legislation is struck down all the time. There's a judge in Las Vegas with the courage to hear a smoking ban case on the constitutionallity of this smoking ban "law". Violation of due process, vague and unenforceable, smoking bans that are effectively creating an easement through the air rights of private property owners (bar and restaurant owners) etc. That's right, you and your ilk are forcing, by way of the government, easements through private property by outlawing how private property owners can use their air rights; which extend from the air in their bar room up through the universe. And a reminder for the this "harming" "argument" Second hand smoke has never been proven to cause harm to anyone. And, uh, we think proof is something a court takes seriously, whether you and a socialist media doesn't. You've heard of the ACLU challenging legislation on constitutional grounds? Well , here's a challenge by citizens/property owners for a change...suck it up. Other groups challenging this odious smoking witch hunt are sure to follow. It's about time! It is the hope that this is the start of meaningful precedent. -- Travel - http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -                                 Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:47:02 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 14 2006 4:08 PM, David Kehler wrote: > >> Why don't you humour me and list a few? >> >> David > > Here are a few quickies: Oh, wow, he makes this easier all the time. ... > 2. I have the right to vote for those officials who make the rules, they speak > with my voice. Therefore, when they enact smoking bans, they are speaking for you. > 3. They have documents disallowing them certain courses of action and > guaranteeing my rights. Including my right to air unfouled by smokers in public places. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                           Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:43:47 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... David Kehler wrote: > Follow <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in > news:1166129151$921882@recpoker.com: >> They choose to enter the room.ÿ They give consent.ÿ How hard is that?ÿ >> Is my consent implied that I might be getting wet if I walk into a >> community pool area?ÿ Or would I be justified in saying that I had no >> idea I was going to get wet? > > Just like you, Mr. Libertarian, obviously give your consent to things like > income taxes because you choose to remain living in the USA, right? RIGHT? > > David Hey, nice catch. By his logic, he also consents to Social Security, Medicare, environmental regulations, every law and regulation on the books in the jurisdiction where he lives. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                         Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:25:10 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 13 2006 9:43 PM, Joe Long wrote: > >> First of all, that is not the case. Consent often makes no difference. >> And when every poker room in town allows smoking, how do play poker >> without giving the kind of "consent" you talk about? > > They choose to enter the room. They give consent. How hard is that? Is my > consent implied that I might be getting wet if I walk into a community pool > area? Or would I be justified in saying that I had no idea I was going to get > wet? > > Just because all have chosen to be a particular way doesn't mean you aren't > giving your consent by going there. You sure sound powerless for a > Libertarian. Don't like a business owner's policy, how hard is it to go > someplace else or refrain from entering that type of business until one of your > liking shows up? Instead you use the force of government to make owners do your > bidding at the point of a gun. You make a great to-do about consent, but it is a red herring. The same argument could be made against any regulation of any business. The fact is that real choice is rarely available, how often do you see two identical businesses side-by-side except one allows smoking and the other does not? And where both have identical job openings, at the same time? Consent to an adjunct condition where not giving consent is only available by eschewing the primary activity is not consent freely given. >> I have no problem with truly private clubs being exempt from a smoking >> ban. Meaning, clubs with some common interest, some requirements for >> membership other than paying a fee, and where you pay significant >> monthly (or quarterly or annual) dues to be a member. > > Why does it have to meet all of your weird requirements so that a business owner > can allow smoking? You're telling me that paying fees and clear signs while you > have clear alternatives of places you can go that are smoke free aren't enough > for you? So if all the clubs on my block say 5 of them are non smoking and I > open a 6th down the street which caters to smokers it should be shut down? I > have clear signage all over it saying "smokers and smoke friendly non-smokers > welcome," and it's down the street and away from the other 5 clubs, all of which > are smoke free and the smoke doesn't bother them directly. > > By your logic, you're saying that my club should be shut down. My club down the > street shouldn't be allowed to cater to its customer base because it offends you > that we're doing such things down there. Requirements along those lines are to avoid subterfuges such as where a tavern becomes a "club" by collecting a one dollar "membership fee" at the door. Signage is immaterial -- you can put up all the "rape allowed on these premises" signs you want and that would not make rape legal on those premises. It's not a matter of offense, it's a matter of public health and protecting people from assault by others. >> I'm not saying "I'm a libertarian on all issues but..." I am pointing >> out that smoking bans are consistent with libertarian philosophy because >> the laws are protecting people from assault by others. > > The assault angle is absolutely ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that > you've chosen to enter a building where smoking is occuring, you do not HAVE to > enter the building. You have a choice, whether it's the only poker room in > town, or the only restaurant in town, you have a very clear CHOICE whether you > enter the building or you don't. There is no one forcing you into the building > and "assaulting" you in any way. It's akin to picking up my fist, banging > yourself in the face with it, and accusing me of battery. It's beyond insanity. The insanity is your denial. > I'm sure you consider alcoholism to be a disease too. > > >> Your comparison to laws against gambling are false. No matter how much >> you may gamble, you are not assualting me. Unless you rob me at >> gunpoint to get money to gamble, and that's been illegal for a long time. > > Why? Plenty of people consider gambling a senseless loss as well. They think > playing poker is no better than flipping coins, and it's no different than > robbing someone at gunpoint. That's why we have gambling laws, Joe, many people > consider your passtime just as nasty as you consider other people's. > > The fact that you would so defensively differentiate should be more than enough > to wake you up, but I can't imagine it will. Take a step back and think about > this stuff rationally. You again totally ignored that one person playing poker is not forcing a toxic substance down the throat of everyone else in the room. >> Smoking bans enhance liberty in a community by freeing people from >> having their air fouled by an addicted minority. > > Craziness. Enhance liberty by forcing a property owner to do as you please > instead of what he pleases on his property because you believe you should be > able to enter it at will and give him instructions. Remember, this is property > that you haven't paid a penny for or toward, and that you have absolutely no > just cause to enter the place if you don't specifically choose to by your own > accord. Not as I please, but as the majority requires. > I'm just absolutely dumbstruck by your arguments thus far Joe. I've never met a > single person anywhere that has argued the property rights angle like you are. > Most supporters of the bans realize very clearly that it's a violation of > property rights, but one they consider necessary. Not a one of them has told me > that it enhances liberty and protects them from "assault." Of course you're dumbstruck. You are in denial and not open to counterarguments. >> Please remember that anarchy is not liberty at all. > > Anarchy is actually the very highest form of liberty. But humanity just isn't > ready for it and probably will never be. It's not that I'm not an anarchist > because I think it's bad, I just think it won't work. But I have lots of > sympathy for the anarchist cause (not the anarchist/communists they can go die, > real anarchists) at least they're in the right direction. Anarchy is one of the worst forms of tyranny, because the strong immediately take over and enslave the weak. The fatal flaw in your position is that smoking bans actually allow the majority of people GREATER choice, by making all venues available to them instead of only those that are non-smoking. No one is denied being able to smoke, they just must do so where they do not foul the air for others in the process. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range       Date: 12 Dec 17:48:35 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 10:30 AM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote:  > That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily > capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up > doing poorly in terms of air quality. > > Why do smokers think they have the right to go inside wherever they > please and foul every non-smokers meal, clothes, or evening like it's > their God given privilege? > > I can't tell you how many times I've been at a restaurant where nobody > is smoking only to have a single smoker light up. If it were a smokey > bar then it's fair game, but damn I've been places where nobody was > smoking and a single smoker has the balls to light up regardless of > families around them and puff away without a care. > > It must suck to be stuck on something so repulsive that you lose your > basic respect for others around you. > > Mike D. I would consider writing a complicated rebuttal to your arguments, but what's the point when you haven't read a word until this point?  In any case, when your comprehension comes up to par feel free to rejoin the discussion.  I absolutely refuse to give you a cohesive reply to an argument that has already been addressed and you're simply ignoring. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:33:21 From: Mark B \(Diputsur\) Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... <syncbus@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1165944601.117829.115810@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare >> smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. So require them to make it non-smoking entirely, or do away with the non-smoking sections? That's pretty silly. >> Enforce signage >> outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. Don't most places already do this? > That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily > capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up > doing poorly in terms of air quality. If you don't like it, don't frequent those establishments. > Why do smokers think they have the right to go inside wherever they > please and foul every non-smokers meal, clothes, or evening like it's > their God given privilege? They typically don't. But when asked "smoking or non-smoking" prior to being seated, depending on the answer they provide and their placement in the facility they either gain or lose the right to light up. Why do non-smokers (and moreso, reformed smokers) think they have a right to bitch about it when they could have just as easily went somewhere were smoking wasn't permitted? > I can't tell you how many times I've been at a restaurant where nobody > is smoking only to have a single smoker light up. If it were a smokey > bar then it's fair game, but damn I've been places where nobody was > smoking and a single smoker has the balls to light up regardless of > families around them and puff away without a care. Wouldn't families around them also be in the smoking section? Aren't you hidden away on the other side of the restaurant? Don't tell me you could smell the smoke from there... you're one of those people that coughs to prove a point when you see someone enjoying a cigarrette, aren't you? > It must suck to be stuck on something so repulsive that you lose your > basic respect for others around you. Not sure about follow, but I smoke for medicinal reasons. I could give two fucks about some asshole at another table losing respect for me... how would I know, and why would I care? If you're stupid enough to make your displeasure obvious however, I'll make sure I keep one burning in the ashtray for no other reason than to piss you off. I'm an asshole like that. > Mike D. Mark -- www.myspace.com/diputsur         Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:46:55 From: Susan Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... "Mark B (Diputsur)" <diputsur@gmail.com > wrote in message news:457f10ac$0$27440$25e83c3@news.inteliport.com... > > <syncbus@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165944601.117829.115810@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare >>> smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. > > So require them to make it non-smoking entirely, or do away > with the non-smoking sections? That's pretty silly. Where do you live? Most places don't have non smoking section anymore. > >>> Enforce signage >>> outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. > > Don't most places already do this? I have NEVER seen a sign that said Smoking was allowed. > >> That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily >> capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up >> doing poorly in terms of air quality. > > If you don't like it, don't frequent those establishments. Exactly - whats the matter with having a choice of NON or SMOKING establishments to choose from. > >> Why do smokers think they have the right to go inside wherever they >> please and foul every non-smokers meal, clothes, or evening like it's >> their God given privilege? > > They typically don't. But when asked "smoking or non-smoking" > prior to being seated, depending on the answer they provide and > their placement in the facility they either gain or lose the right > to light up. Why do non-smokers (and moreso, reformed smokers) > think they have a right to bitch about it when they could have > just as easily went somewhere were smoking wasn't permitted? Agree - if smoking is allowed no one has the right to bitch. > >> I can't tell you how many times I've been at a restaurant where nobody >> is smoking only to have a single smoker light up. If it were a smokey >> bar then it's fair game, but damn I've been places where nobody was >> smoking and a single smoker has the balls to light up regardless of >> families around them and puff away without a care. > > Wouldn't families around them also be in the smoking section? > Aren't you hidden away on the other side of the restaurant? > Don't tell me you could smell the smoke from there... you're > one of those people that coughs to prove a point when you > see someone enjoying a cigarrette, aren't you? teehee > >> It must suck to be stuck on something so repulsive that you lose your >> basic respect for others around you. I think you'd be surprised how many NONsmokers are on the other side of the issue that you are. > > Not sure about follow, but I smoke for medicinal reasons. > I could give two fucks about some asshole at another table losing > respect for me... how would I know, and why would I care? > If you're stupid enough to make your displeasure obvious however, > I'll make sure I keep one burning in the ashtray for no other reason > than to piss you off. I'm an asshole like that. >> Mike D. > > Mark > -- > www.myspace.com/diputsur >           Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:02:06 From: Mark B \(Diputsur\) Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... "Susan" <sdbratt48@netscape.net > wrote in message news:FyEfh.26$4x6.1@newsfe06.lga... > > "Mark B (Diputsur)" <diputsur@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:457f10ac$0$27440$25e83c3@news.inteliport.com... >> >> <syncbus@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1165944601.117829.115810@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>>> so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare >>>> smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. >> >> So require them to make it non-smoking entirely, or do away >> with the non-smoking sections? That's pretty silly. > > Where do you live? Most places don't have non smoking section anymore. Born and bred in NJ, currently residing in NC but do most of shopping etc. in the VA Beach/Norfolk area of Virginia. The only restaurants I frequent that don't have non-smoking sections are smoke free! >>>> Enforce signage >>>> outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. >> >> Don't most places already do this? > > I have NEVER seen a sign that said Smoking was allowed. Look harder. There's usually a sign telling you if smoking is not permitted... if that's missing you'll often find something stating that a non-smoking section is available. That's the one which implicitly says 'smoking is allowed'. >>> That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily >>> capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up >>> doing poorly in terms of air quality. >> >> If you don't like it, don't frequent those establishments. > > Exactly - whats the matter with having a choice of NON or SMOKING > establishments to choose from. It's a stupid question... you already have that choice. 'Smoking establishments' often provide a non-smoking section however, are you saying that shouldn't be an option? Mark -- www.myspace.com/diputsur             Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:04:06 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Was really wierd driving through SC (it might have been NC, I'm not sure) over the Thanksgiving holiday and being asked if we wanted the smoking section. Hadn't heard that question in a long time. Florida is smoke free. On Dec 12 2006 4:02 PM, Mark B (Diputsur) wrote: > "Susan" <sdbratt48@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:FyEfh.26$4x6.1@newsfe06.lga... > > > > "Mark B (Diputsur)" <diputsur@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:457f10ac$0$27440$25e83c3@news.inteliport.com... > >> > >> <syncbus@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1165944601.117829.115810@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>>> so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare > >>>> smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. > >> > >> So require them to make it non-smoking entirely, or do away > >> with the non-smoking sections? That's pretty silly. > > > > Where do you live? Most places don't have non smoking section anymore. > > Born and bred in NJ, currently residing in NC but do most of shopping etc. > in the VA Beach/Norfolk area of Virginia. The only restaurants I frequent > that don't have non-smoking sections are smoke free! > > >>>> Enforce signage > >>>> outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. > >> > >> Don't most places already do this? > > > > I have NEVER seen a sign that said Smoking was allowed. > > Look harder. There's usually a sign telling you if smoking is > not permitted... if that's missing you'll often find something > stating that a non-smoking section is available. That's the > one which implicitly says 'smoking is allowed'. > > >>> That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily > >>> capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up > >>> doing poorly in terms of air quality. > >> > >> If you don't like it, don't frequent those establishments. > > > > Exactly - whats the matter with having a choice of NON or SMOKING > > establishments to choose from. > > It's a stupid question... you already have that choice. > 'Smoking establishments' often provide a non-smoking > section however, are you saying that shouldn't be an option? > > Mark > -- > www.myspace.com/diputsur thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7 ----  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com             Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:13:54 From: Susan Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... No, I am not saying that establishments shouldn't have a nonsmoking section. However, every place I have lived in the last 10 years it seems that the non-smoking PERIOD is being enacted. So, in lieu of fighting it, I am saying why not give everyone a choice - either totally non-smoking or totally smoking. Leave it up to the proprietors whether THEIR PLACE, that THEY BOUGHT and OWN should make the decision. You say it's a stupid question, but smokers DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE in many many (and more everyday) cities/states. Susan BTW - I despise smoking, but despise the government intervention even more. "Mark B (Diputsur)" <diputsur@gmail.com > wrote in message news:457f1769$0$27424$25e83c3@news.inteliport.com... > It's a stupid question... you already have that choice. > 'Smoking establishments' often provide a non-smoking > section however, are you saying that shouldn't be an option? > > Mark > -- > www.myspace.com/diputsur >               Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:04:59 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I totally agree with your post Susan On Dec 12 2006 4:13 PM, Susan wrote: > No, I am not saying that establishments shouldn't have a nonsmoking section. > However, every place I have lived in the last 10 years it seems that the > non-smoking PERIOD is being enacted. > > So, in lieu of fighting it, I am saying why not give everyone a choice - > either totally non-smoking or totally smoking. Leave it up to the > proprietors whether THEIR PLACE, that THEY BOUGHT and OWN should make the > decision. > > You say it's a stupid question, but smokers DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE in many > many (and more everyday) cities/states. > > Susan > > BTW - I despise smoking, but despise the government intervention even more. > > > > > "Mark B (Diputsur)" <diputsur@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:457f1769$0$27424$25e83c3@news.inteliport.com... > > > It's a stupid question... you already have that choice. > > 'Smoking establishments' often provide a non-smoking > > section however, are you saying that shouldn't be an option? > > > > Mark > > -- > > www.myspace.com/diputsur > > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7 ____________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com               Date: 12 Dec 21:25:18 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 2:13 PM, Susan wrote: > BTW - I despise smoking, but despise the government intervention even more. Susan, you have no IDEA how much I love that statement.... Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec 2006 11:57:13 From: syncbus@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... What a weak reply Follow, it's clear you couldn't refute a single point I made and choose the easy way out. So help me out with my comprehension here, what exactly is this steller point you've made that I simply don't understand, otherwise I'll chalk that up as a win (if there was ever such a thing on Usenet). So far the only point of yours I've read (over and over) is the nonsensical comparison to nuclear hazards. Is that the point you're so proud of? Mike D. Follow wrote: > On Dec 12 2006 10:30 AM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > > > That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily > > capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up > > doing poorly in terms of air quality. > > > > Why do smokers think they have the right to go inside wherever they > > please and foul every non-smokers meal, clothes, or evening like it's > > their God given privilege? > > > > I can't tell you how many times I've been at a restaurant where nobody > > is smoking only to have a single smoker light up. If it were a smokey > > bar then it's fair game, but damn I've been places where nobody was > > smoking and a single smoker has the balls to light up regardless of > > families around them and puff away without a care. > > > > It must suck to be stuck on something so repulsive that you lose your > > basic respect for others around you. > > > > Mike D. > > I would consider writing a complicated rebuttal to your arguments, but what's > the point when you haven't read a word until this point? In any case, when your > comprehension comes up to par feel free to rejoin the discussion. I absolutely > refuse to give you a cohesive reply to an argument that has already been > addressed and you're simply ignoring. > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:52:35 From: syncbus@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: >So don't be a complete fucking idiot and at least SKIM the messages before >replying and leaving absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that you're such a >dumb bastard. When you start calling names, you've pretty much lost the argument. Do you see me calling names? I attributed a sentence you paraphrased to you, my bad. I still don't see where you're able to refute a single point I've made aside from the last resort of name calling. As for dumb bastards, well at least I nailed my LSAT and received offers from two law schools. From your post it sounds like you did neither. Are you having fun playing lawyer from your keyboard this afternoon because it sounds like this is your big day. Mike D. Follow wrote: > On Dec 12 2006 12:57 PM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > > > What a weak reply Follow, it's clear you couldn't refute a single point > > I made and choose the easy way out. > > > > So help me out with my comprehension here, what exactly is this steller > > point you've made that I simply don't understand, otherwise I'll chalk > > that up as a win (if there was ever such a thing on Usenet). > > > > So far the only point of yours I've read (over and over) is the > > nonsensical comparison to nuclear hazards. Is that the point you're so > > proud of? > > > > Mike D. > > First, I wasn't the one that brought up the comparison to nuclear hazards, > someone else did. I called them nonsense comparisons as well, and they asked me > why. So don't be a complete fucking idiot and at least SKIM the messages before > replying and leaving absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that you're such a > dumb bastard. > > And, since you're too damned disabled to scroll up (or maybe your mouse wheel > isn't compatible with hooves) I'll repost the first half of my original message > for your dumb ass to READ this time. > > --------- > In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government. I agree > with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to > choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room. What's funny is that most > smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are exactly > the opposite. > > As it stands without bans on smoking in private establishments such as bars and > restaurants; we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments > and owners have the choice of making it one or the other. There is no law on > the books, nor has there ever been a law requiring an establishment to have a > smoking area available. But now, we are talking about a law forbidding a > smoking area and somehow decide that this is a vote for more liberty? I don't > think so. > > I find it curious that I see "Republicans" like Irish Mike on this topic > sounding off on a smoking ban. Aren't "Republicans" supposed to be interested > in property rights and the soveriegnty of that ownership? Are you only a > "Republican" when it doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities? It's quite > simple, you don't like being around smokers, you don't enter a restaurant or bar > which permits smoking and take your grievance to the owner(s) of said > establishment. I thought only Democrats passed frivolous laws to suit their own > comfort. > > Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and > bar smoking ban took effect. The loophole was that these "clubs" required > membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant > or bar and were not impacted by the law. Nearly every bar in Utah and some > restaurants turned into "private clubs." There were however others that did > not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a > choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking establishment. > How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices. You want to smoke, here > is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. > > That changed this year when legislators decided that smoking clubs were still > evil and possibly breaking god's law, and passed more legislation disallowing > even the private clubs from allowing smoking. Now we have no more choice, no > smoking and non-smoking clubs, nothing, just a bunch of "smoke-free" everythings > with a group of people with the audacity to say they're on the side of > "freedom." I would venture so far as to say they are fighters for "comfort" but > definitely a little bit on the facist side as far as "freedom" is concerned. > > Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because of > this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will. There is a > bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to > drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do. Soon (the law hasn't taken > effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of > continued competition. It's over for them. > > ------- > > If you're still not clear on the property rights discussion, then scroll up and > fucking read. You're not fooling anyone with your "I win, j00 lose" bullshit. > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:18:03 From: syncbus@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I'm done with this thread, enjoy your cigarettes as much as you like. It's pretty clear I can't compete with someone of your stature, you know as in getting accepted to a prestigious law school without actually finishing a degree first. Ha Ha! Like I believe that! Mike D. Follow wrote: > On Dec 12 2006 1:52 PM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > > > As for dumb bastards, well at least I nailed my LSAT and received > > offers from two law schools. From your post it sounds like you did > > neither. Are you having fun playing lawyer from your keyboard this > > afternoon because it sounds like this is your big day. > > > > Mike D. > > I applied to only one law school that had a 2% acceptance rate, and was > accepted. One app. One acceptance. Wasn't that hard, and I did that without > an undergraduate degree, I just decided against law school in the end. So don't > try to make me out like some kind of loser because it makes you feel better > after you've figured out that you're more than mostly illiterate, it just makes > you seem petty. > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:01:15 From: pokerchimp Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... My dick is bigger than both of your. On Dec 12 2006 4:18 PM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > I'm done with this thread, enjoy your cigarettes as much as you like. > It's pretty clear I can't compete with someone of your stature, you > know as in getting accepted to a prestigious law school without > actually finishing a degree first. > > Ha Ha! Like I believe that! > > Mike D. > > Follow wrote: > > On Dec 12 2006 1:52 PM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > As for dumb bastards, well at least I nailed my LSAT and received > > > offers from two law schools. From your post it sounds like you did > > > neither. Are you having fun playing lawyer from your keyboard this > > > afternoon because it sounds like this is your big day. > > > > > > Mike D. > > > > I applied to only one law school that had a 2% acceptance rate, and was > > accepted. One app. One acceptance. Wasn't that hard, and I did that without > > an undergraduate degree, I just decided against law school in the end. So don't > > try to make me out like some kind of loser because it makes you feel better > > after you've figured out that you're more than mostly illiterate, it just makes > > you seem petty. > > > > > > > > > > Follow :) > > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7 ----  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com               Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 5:01 PM, pokerchimp wrote: > My dick is bigger than both of your. Ouch...  :( ;) Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec 21:23:39 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 2:18 PM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > I'm done with this thread, enjoy your cigarettes as much as you like. > It's pretty clear I can't compete with someone of your stature, you > know as in getting accepted to a prestigious law school without > actually finishing a degree first. > > Ha Ha! Like I believe that! > > Mike D. It's true, but I didn't really expect you to believe it, "Mike D." the poker player and law school student.  :P Tell Gretchen Mol I said hello. Dork. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 12 Dec 21:04:38 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 1:52 PM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote:  > As for dumb bastards, well at least I nailed my LSAT and received > offers from two law schools. From your post it sounds like you did > neither. Are you having fun playing lawyer from your keyboard this > afternoon because it sounds like this is your big day. > > Mike D. I applied to only one law school that had a 2% acceptance rate, and was accepted.  One app.  One acceptance.  Wasn't that hard, and I did that without an undergraduate degree, I just decided against law school in the end.  So don't try to make me out like some kind of loser because it makes you feel better after you've figured out that you're more than mostly illiterate, it just makes you seem petty. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec 21:30:02 From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 3:04 PM, Follow wrote: > > > > On Dec 12 2006 1:52 PM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote:  > > > As for dumb bastards, well at least I nailed my LSAT and received > > offers from two law schools. From your post it sounds like you did > > neither. Are you having fun playing lawyer from your keyboard this > > afternoon because it sounds like this is your big day. > > > > Mike D. > > I applied to only one law school that had a 2% acceptance rate, and was It's a fairly good bet that there is no such school. http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/1/asc/Accept But maybe you're just confused about the difference between rejection rates and acceptence rates.  Or maybe you think unacredited law schools are actually law schools. But you really don't need to have gone to law school to understand that just because it's private property doesn't mean it's not classified as a public accomendation.  (check that spelling for me, would you?  You're good at that) Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com/ _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 12 Dec 21:43:59 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 2:30 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > It's a fairly good bet that there is no such school. > > http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/1/asc/Accept > > But maybe you're just confused about the difference between rejection rates > and > acceptence rates.  Or maybe you think unacredited law schools are actually law > schools. > > But you really don't need to have gone to law school to understand that just > because it's private property doesn't mean it's not classified as a public > accomendation.  (check that spelling for me, would you?  You're good at that) > > > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com/ Oooo, let's play completely off-topic games that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.  I mean, you have every reason to disbelieve a statement made by a person who has no reason to lie to you anyway... Here are some hints for you... (this is just from memory because I no longer have the course brochure which had the numbers listed) This school had 2116 (approx.) applicants in 2002.  And they had (approx.) 52 open slots, and thus 52 successful applicants. So I guess that's a little closer to 3%, but whatever.  I remember 2% for some reason, but those are the numbers that stick out.  Maybe my memory is having dyslexia.  ;) Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 12 Dec 20:34:53 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 12:57 PM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > What a weak reply Follow, it's clear you couldn't refute a single point > I made and choose the easy way out. > > So help me out with my comprehension here, what exactly is this steller > point you've made that I simply don't understand, otherwise I'll chalk > that up as a win (if there was ever such a thing on Usenet). > > So far the only point of yours I've read (over and over) is the > nonsensical comparison to nuclear hazards. Is that the point you're so > proud of? > > Mike D. First, I wasn't the one that brought up the comparison to nuclear hazards, someone else did.  I called them nonsense comparisons as well, and they asked me why.  So don't be a complete fucking idiot and at least SKIM the messages before replying and leaving absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that you're such a dumb bastard. And, since you're too damned disabled to scroll up (or maybe your mouse wheel isn't compatible with hooves) I'll repost the first half of my original message for your dumb ass to READ this time. --------- In short, I think smoking bans are outside the domain of government.  I agree with the preservation of a person's health and that they should be able to choose whether or not they will be in a smoky room.  What's funny is that most smoking banners would say the same thing when in fact their views are exactly the opposite. As it stands without bans on smoking in private establishments such as bars and restaurants; we have the choice to enter smoking or non-smoking establishments and owners have the choice of making it one or the other.  There is no law on the books, nor has there ever been a law requiring an establishment to have a smoking area available.  But now, we are talking about a law forbidding a smoking area and somehow decide that this is a vote for more liberty?  I don't think so. I find it curious that I see "Republicans" like Irish Mike on this topic sounding off on a smoking ban.  Aren't "Republicans" supposed to be interested in property rights and the soveriegnty of that ownership?  Are you only a "Republican" when it doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities?  It's quite simple, you don't like being around smokers, you don't enter a restaurant or bar which permits smoking and take your grievance to the owner(s) of said establishment.  I thought only Democrats passed frivolous laws to suit their own comfort. Here in Utah, we had what were called "private clubs" when our restaurant and bar smoking ban took effect.  The loophole was that these "clubs" required membership and were therefore immune to the semi-public nature of a restaurant or bar and were not impacted by the law.  Nearly every bar in Utah and some restaurants turned into "private clubs."  There were however others that did not, and banned smoking in their establishments so that people would have a choice whether they would like to be in a smoking or non-smoking establishment.  How nice that was, freedom for all and lots of choices.  You want to smoke, here is a smoking club, you don't like smoke, here is a non-smoking club. That changed this year when legislators decided that smoking clubs were still evil and possibly breaking god's law, and passed more legislation disallowing even the private clubs from allowing smoking.  Now we have no more choice, no smoking and non-smoking clubs, nothing, just a bunch of "smoke-free" everythings with a group of people with the audacity to say they're on the side of "freedom."  I would venture so far as to say they are fighters for "comfort" but definitely a little bit on the facist side as far as "freedom" is concerned. Someone, I think Peg Smith asked which bars have gone out of business because of this smoking ban, and I can think of one that most certainly will.  There is a bar in Utah called "Hookah Bar" where they have hookahs to smoke and liquor to drink, it's their whole gimmick, it's what they do.  Soon (the law hasn't taken effect yet) Hookah Bar will have no niche in the market and probably no hope of continued competition.  It's over for them. ------- If you're still not clear on the property rights discussion, then scroll up and fucking read.  You're not fooling anyone with your "I win, j00 lose" bullshit. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 2006 08:46:38 From: syncbus@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... > Simple solution, non-smokers who are bothered by smoke don't enter smoking > establishments. That satisfies all of your requirements and is the most liberty > promoting. It's not as simple as that because business owners try to cater to smokers and non-smokers and end up with one section that's "really smokey" and another section that's "partially smokey". You can counterpoint every argument here about the effects of secondhand smoke, workers free choice, and personal stories about cancer but you can't counter this; the activity of smoking infringes on the rights of non-smokers and regardless of property owner's rights or free choice in dining or entertainment, your right to do something ends where it infringes on someone else's rights. That is a fundamental underpinning of the Constitution and no amount of counter-argument is going to easily change it. You also can't threaten a comparision between alcohol prohibition and smoking bans because alcohol doesn't infringe upon the rights of non-drinkers unless you consider the burden to society from it's health effects, and negative impact on employment and family when taken in excess. Do you agree with that? Good, you've just made my case against smoking. Mike D. Follow wrote: > On Dec 12 2006 8:18 AM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > > > Here is the simple reason smoking should be banned from all public > > places, and since you're so interested in "rights" I'm going to include > > that topic in my point: > > > > "Individual freedoms extend right up to the point that they infringe > > upon other individual's freedoms." > > > > That's it, plain and simple. The smokers right to stink up the place > > stops right at the point that non-smokers come into contact with the > > smoke, since that can't be controlled to a point that non-smokers are > > fully protected then the right of the smoker to smoke is stopped. > > > > It's interesting that smokers are the first to scream about their right > > to smoke while ignoring the fact that their act of smoking is > > infringing on the rights of every non-smoker around them. > > > > Mike D. > > Simple solution, non-smokers who are bothered by smoke don't enter smoking > establishments. That satisfies all of your requirements and is the most liberty > promoting. As it stands with bans, it infringes on the freedom of the property > owner, whereas without the ban it infringes on no one's freedom as they are free > to go elsewhere with no smoking or smoke. > > I agree with your statements about liberty, but it's non-smokers who are pushing > their envelope and infringing on liberty, not the other way around. Read my OP, > it should address your concerns completely. > > > > > Follow :) > > > _______________________________________________________________ > Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec 2006 10:52:00 From: Susan Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... <syncbus@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1165941998.755022.196780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > It's not as simple as that because business owners try to cater to > smokers and non-smokers and end up with one section that's "really > smokey" and another section that's "partially smokey". > so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. Enforce signage outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. Simple     Date: 12 Dec 16:08:25 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 8:18 AM, syncbus@gmail.com wrote: > Here is the simple reason smoking should be banned from all public > places, and since you're so interested in "rights" I'm going to include > that topic in my point: > > "Individual freedoms extend right up to the point that they infringe > upon other individual's freedoms." > > That's it, plain and simple. The smokers right to stink up the place > stops right at the point that non-smokers come into contact with the > smoke, since that can't be controlled to a point that non-smokers are > fully protected then the right of the smoker to smoke is stopped. > > It's interesting that smokers are the first to scream about their right > to smoke while ignoring the fact that their act of smoking is > infringing on the rights of every non-smoker around them. > > Mike D. Simple solution, non-smokers who are bothered by smoke don't enter smoking establishments.  That satisfies all of your requirements and is the most liberty promoting.  As it stands with bans, it infringes on the freedom of the property owner, whereas without the ban it infringes on no one's freedom as they are free to go elsewhere with no smoking or smoke. I agree with your statements about liberty, but it's non-smokers who are pushing their envelope and infringing on liberty, not the other way around.  Read my OP, it should address your concerns completely. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:05:46 From: syncbus@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Mark, I grew up in a household with two parents smoking Pall Malls non-stop so I'm not one of those bastards that catches a wiff of smoke and throws a tantrum. On the other hand I've been to plenty of restaurants that when crowded try to seat non-smokers in the smoking section saying "nobody's smoking, is this okay?". Now if I were a smoker and the place was busy and nobody was smoking and there were plenty of families around in the smoking section, I'd hold off smoking out of respect for others. Sure they are sitting in the smoking section and sure I'd have the right to light up, but I wouldn't. And the fact that some don't understand that is a damn shame. Mike D. Mark B (Diputsur) wrote: > <syncbus@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165944601.117829.115810@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> so make it descretionary on the part of the business owner to declare > >> smoking or non-smoking for the entire establishment. > > So require them to make it non-smoking entirely, or do away > with the non-smoking sections? That's pretty silly. > > >> Enforce signage > >> outside saying whether smoking is allowed or not. > > Don't most places already do this? > > > That doesn't work because business owners being necessarily > > capitalistic try to serve both smokers and non-smokers, and end up > > doing poorly in terms of air quality. > > If you don't like it, don't frequent those establishments. > > > Why do smokers think they have the right to go inside wherever they > > please and foul every non-smokers meal, clothes, or evening like it's > > their God given privilege? > > They typically don't. But when asked "smoking or non-smoking" > prior to being seated, depending on the answer they provide and > their placement in the facility they either gain or lose the right > to light up. Why do non-smokers (and moreso, reformed smokers) > think they have a right to bitch about it when they could have > just as easily went somewhere were smoking wasn't permitted? > > > I can't tell you how many times I've been at a restaurant where nobody > > is smoking only to have a single smoker light up. If it were a smokey > > bar then it's fair game, but damn I've been places where nobody was > > smoking and a single smoker has the balls to light up regardless of > > families around them and puff away without a care. > > Wouldn't families around them also be in the smoking section? > Aren't you hidden away on the other side of the restaurant? > Don't tell me you could smell the smoke from there... you're > one of those people that coughs to prove a point when you > see someone enjoying a cigarrette, aren't you? > > > It must suck to be stuck on something so repulsive that you lose your > > basic respect for others around you. > > Not sure about follow, but I smoke for medicinal reasons. > I could give two fucks about some asshole at another table losing > respect for me... how would I know, and why would I care? > If you're stupid enough to make your displeasure obvious however, > I'll make sure I keep one burning in the ashtray for no other reason > than to piss you off. I'm an asshole like that. > > > Mike D. > > Mark > -- > www.myspace.com/diputsur       Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:41:04 From: Mark B \(Diputsur\) Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... <syncbus@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1165957546.228886.36550@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Mark, I grew up in a household with two parents smoking Pall Malls > non-stop so I'm not one of those bastards that catches a wiff of smoke > and throws a tantrum. > > On the other hand I've been to plenty of restaurants that when crowded > try to seat non-smokers in the smoking section saying "nobody's > smoking, is this okay?". When I go to a restaurant I normally tell them I'd prefer smoking but will take first available. I've heard servers ask others if smoking would be acceptable when the entire place is packed as they're giving the oldest wait first option, but I've never heard them say "nobody's smoking" because anyone with half a fucking brain should realize that if they're not now, they will be shortly. > Now if I were a smoker and the place was busy > and nobody was smoking and there were plenty of families around in the > smoking section, I'd hold off smoking out of respect for others. I've never seen a smoking section of a 'busy' restaurant in which nobody was smoking... you normally have at least one lit on every other table at any given time. If I ever find myself in a smoking section surrounded by non-smokers, I'll keep you in mind and maybe I'll refrain from lighting up ;-) Unless of course some asshole is eyeballing me after seeing my pack on the table... in which case it's air freshener in the ashtray time. > Sure they are sitting in the smoking section and sure I'd have the > right to light up, but I wouldn't. > And the fact that some don't understand that is a damn shame. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't think you're portraying a realistic scenario. If someone is truly bothered by smoke/smokers they won't be in that section. My parents (reformed smokers) will wait 30 minutes for a non-smoking table, and if the wait is much longer than that they'll leave and go somewhere else. Additionally, from my experience, it's the smoking sections that fill up first... I'm often seated in non-smoking sections when smoking is full and this is where I typically encounter those idiots eyeballing my pack that I mentioned earlier... because I place it on the table they're concerned that I may light up in the middle of their precious non-smoking section, not realizing that I have no intention of doing so. That doesn't stop them from staring at me as if I'm the devil though. Mark -- www.myspace.com/diputsur   Date: 12 Dec 21:54:09 From: Chris Argento Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I have neither the time nor the desire to read through the rest of the responses in this thread, so if this point has been addressed already, please point me to the proper place and I will read the answer there. As a non-smoker living in New Jersey, where a ban in restaurants/bars/etc. was put into place last year, I absolutely LOVE the ban.  I come home from a night at the bar and my clothes don't reek of smoke, my contact lenses aren't all fuzzy and disgusting when I take them out, and I have an overall more enjoyable experience.  Given the choice between all restaurants being smoking permitted establishments, or all restaurants being non-smoking establishments, I'd choose the latter every time and don't see it as a deprivation of smoker's or business owner's rights but rather as an affirmation of a non-smoker's rights to be able to go out to a public place and not be subjected to (potentially) dangerous secondhand smoke.  You have no right to (potentially) cause harm to others while causing harm to yourself. I'm curious what the problem is with private smoking clubs, legally speaking.  As a non-smoker, I could care less if there are private clubs that allow smoking on their premises.  They neither effect or concern me.  Utah had them apparently but they were legislatively outlawed - what was the legal basis for this? _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 22:02:57 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 2:54 PM, Chris Argento wrote: > I'm curious what the problem is with private smoking clubs, legally speaking.  > As a non-smoker, I could care less if there are private clubs that allow > smoking > on their premises.  They neither effect or concern me.  Utah had them > apparently > but they were legislatively outlawed - what was the legal basis for this? The same basis as banning it in the first place.  People felt that they could enter a private club that allowed smoking and tell them that they didn't like it and pass legislation to that effect. What would be the detrimental effect of people who are bothered by smoke to petition owners of the restaurant and bar industry to CHOOSE to make their establishments non-smoking instead of passing laws forcing them to? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com       Date: 12 Dec 22:12:30 From: Chris Argento Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... That doesn't make sense.  If it's a private club with a private membership, they owner has the right to bar the non-smoker who feels that there should be no smoking allowed.  If it is a privately-owned club that derives its business from being a public accomodation, that's a big difference.  I'm still not entirely clear what is going on here. And another question (and don't take this as me arguing with you, just trying to fully understand your position):  Are you saying that the government doesn't have the right to regulate safety in the name of the public health in privately owned public accomodations, or that the government has the right to do so but shouldn't and should allow free market forces to prevail? _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com         Date: 12 Dec 22:30:07 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 3:12 PM, Chris Argento wrote: > That doesn't make sense.  If it's a private club with a private membership, > they > owner has the right to bar the non-smoker who feels that there should be no > smoking allowed.  If it is a privately-owned club that derives its business > from > being a public accomodation, that's a big difference.  I'm still not entirely > clear what is going on here. These were restaurants and bars that had private memberships of people who wanted to be in such an environment.  People would pay membership fees to be "members" usually a nominal fee.  But anyone could come and be a member, and there were no bones about it being a smoking or non-smoking environment.  People were quite aware that they were walking into a smoking area.  They chose to walk in anyway, regardless of the fact that there were other bars and restaurants that prohibited smoking and charged no membership fees. > And another question (and don't take this as me arguing with you, just trying > to > fully understand your position):  Are you saying that the government doesn't > have the right to regulate safety in the name of the public health in > privately > owned public accomodations, or that the government has the right to do so but > shouldn't and should allow free market forces to prevail? That depends on where you believe "rights" come from.  Government has a monopoly on force, which gives them the "right" to do anything they choose.  However, they have no "right" to mandate a person's property and how they choose to run it.  They do have the guns to enforce their decisions though, which does give them the "right." So ya, they have the "right" but should allow the free market to prevail to at least act benevolent. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com           Date: 12 Dec 22:44:04 From: Chris Argento Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Ok, I guess now I'm ready to give my perspective on the situation.  I think it's clear that the government has the "right" to enact this ban because of the public health implications.  By "right", I mean Constitutional right.  Whether or not it is proven that there is a direct correlation between second hand smoke and adverse health effects, I think we can agree that it is a distinct possibility that the two are related.  Until the science comes down conclusively one way or the other, I think the safest course is to assume the worst.  Which is why as an American who believes in individual rights, I have no problem with this course of action.  I'd prefer there to be an allowance for private clubs where smoking was legal, but if that is not legally feasible for whatever reason, I think the no smoking in public places mandate is best.  I understand that smokers feel their "right to smoke" is being abridged and I agree with them.  But I feel that abridging this right in privately owned public accomodations is well within the government's rights and duties as spelled out by the U.S. Constitution. _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com             Date: 12 Dec 22:46:02 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 3:44 PM, Chris Argento wrote: > > Ok, I guess now I'm ready to give my perspective on the situation.  I think > it's > clear that the government has the "right" to enact this ban because of the > public health implications.  By "right", I mean Constitutional right.  Whether > or not it is proven that there is a direct correlation between second hand > smoke > and adverse health effects, I think we can agree that it is a distinct > possibility that the two are related.  Until the science comes down > conclusively > one way or the other, I think the safest course is to assume the worst.  Which > is why as an American who believes in individual rights, I have no problem > with > this course of action.  I'd prefer there to be an allowance for private clubs > where smoking was legal, but if that is not legally feasible for whatever > reason, I think the no smoking in public places mandate is best.  I understand > that smokers feel their "right to smoke" is being abridged and I agree with > them.  But I feel that abridging this right in privately owned public > accomodations is well within the government's rights and duties as spelled out > by the U.S. Constitution. Which section of the Constitution spells that out?  I'd like to re-read that section... Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com               Date: 12 Dec 22:52:42 From: Chris Argento Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Sure...feel free to Google the "interstate commerce" clause, which has been interpreted to allow the government to regulate private businesses that engage in interstate commerce. _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                 Date: 12 Dec 22:57:01 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 3:52 PM, Chris Argento wrote: > Sure...feel free to Google the "interstate commerce" clause, which has been > interpreted to allow the government to regulate private businesses that engage > in interstate commerce. I'm very familiar with the ICC, and the stretches the Congress has taken to use it to regulate everything they possibly can.  But really, I don't even see how the craftiest of shills can take this: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." and twist it into "government has the right to tell businesses they can't house smokers."  At which point does a smoking section in a restaurant in Cleveland become commerce with a foreign nation, other state, or indian tribe?  Which portion of it is even commerce? I don't think John Ashcroft himself could spin this one to cover... Any others you had in mind? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:00:16 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Follow wrote: > > > On Dec 12 2006 3:52 PM, Chris Argento wrote: > >> Sure...feel free to Google the "interstate commerce" clause, which has been >> interpreted to allow the government to regulate private businesses that engage >> in interstate commerce. > > I'm very familiar with the ICC, and the stretches the Congress has taken to use > it to regulate everything they possibly can. But really, I don't even see how > the craftiest of shills can take this: > > "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and > with the Indian Tribes." > > and twist it into "government has the right to tell businesses they can't house > smokers." At which point does a smoking section in a restaurant in Cleveland > become commerce with a foreign nation, other state, or indian tribe? Which > portion of it is even commerce? > > I don't think John Ashcroft himself could spin this one to cover... > > Any others you had in mind? There is no Federal smoking ban. All of them are State, county, or local actions. The constitutionality of such regulation is well established. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                     Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 6:00 PM, Joe Long wrote:  > There is no Federal smoking ban. All of them are State, county, or > local actions. The constitutionality of such regulation is well > established. > > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range All of that was brought up and discussed, keep reading that tangent. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                   Date: 12 Dec 23:02:26 From: Chris Argento Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I believe that this one is sufficient.  Congress and the courts decided long ago that the "interstate commerce" clause could be applied to businesses such as restaurants and bars since they have suppliers who are in other states, customers from outside the state, etc.  Now if you have a problem with the broad interpretation of the Constitution, that is another matter entirely.  I don't, and in that same vein, feel it is justification enough for this action.  You disagree?  Ok, we'll agree to disagree, no skin off my back. _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 12 Dec 23:34:39 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 4:02 PM, Chris Argento wrote: > I believe that this one is sufficient.  Congress and the courts decided long > ago > that the "interstate commerce" clause could be applied to businesses such as > restaurants and bars since they have suppliers who are in other states, > customers from outside the state, etc.  Now if you have a problem with the > broad > interpretation of the Constitution, that is another matter entirely.  I don't, > and in that same vein, feel it is justification enough for this action.  You > disagree?  Ok, we'll agree to disagree, no skin off my back. What's humorous about this situation is that Congress hasn't found themselves a right to deny smoking in privately owned restaurants yet, regardless of where the food comes from.  They have the right to regulate the commerce of that food from one state to the next, but not the use of that food once it reaches the other state.  So far one state (Oregon) has tested the limits of that power when John Ashcroft tried to rule that state doctors could not assist in patient suicide.  The Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the issue because there was no federal law on record to stop them, but I expect that the Supreme Court will also overturn it if it ever reaches them.  The basis for that case was the ICC as well. Similarly, there is no federal law on record prohibiting smoking in private businesses.  And also similarly, I don't think any judge could possibly view the ICC as covering this.  If they ever do, you should start thinking about a new country to reside in, because they've definitely lost their mind.  Tell me what the ICC would NOT cover if it covers this.  The feds have no Constitutional right to infringe on the rights of property owners this way and they know it.  You might have been better off arguing that Congress has the right to pass laws relating to the general welfare of the people, which IS outlined in the Constitution, but even that (though closer) misses the mark here. These laws are coming from state and local legislatures who operate under more stringent state constitutions.  In order to find whether or not each particular jurisdiction has the "right" to carry these laws out, one would need to be familiar with each of those state's constitutions, which I'm not.  But in any case, they shouldn't be using such power even if they do have it because our rights to property are protected.  Master of the house and all that... Of course, we don't have an enumerated right in the Constitution to permit activities in our homes, but it is implied as such: Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. So you see, Amendment 4 gives us the right to be secure in our homes and possessions against unreasonable search.  So that would mean that was all we were entitled to, but then there is Amendment 9 (which all too often gets overlooked) that says any right enumerated shall not be construed to deny another right retained by the people.  That amendment states specifically that we have rights that are not directly stated in the Constitution itself, and just because we have enumerated rights therein, doesn't mean we don't have rights that are not enumerated.  The choice to allow patrons in a private establishment to participate in an otherwise legal activity is therefore clearly protected by our founding Constitution. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                     Date: 12 Dec 23:04:44 From: comfail Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 3:02 PM, Chris Argento wrote: > > I believe that this one is sufficient.  Congress and the courts decided long > ago > that the "interstate commerce" clause could be applied to businesses such as > restaurants and bars since they have suppliers who are in other states, > customers from outside the state, etc.  Now if you have a problem with the > broad > interpretation of the Constitution, that is another matter entirely.  I don't, > and in that same vein, feel it is justification enough for this action.  You > disagree?  Ok, we'll agree to disagree, no skin off my back. Welcome to the war on drugs Follow. Some people have been fighting it for years. _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                       Date: 12 Dec 23:37:26 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 4:04 PM, comfail wrote:  > Welcome to the war on drugs Follow. Some people have been fighting it for > years. Hey, I've been in those trenches for years myself.  We may not agree on this issue, but I'm sure we would be on the same side for many other issues.  I've had arguments this long with just as many people about legalizing drugs (all drugs). It's kinda fun being the odd duck.  Do you read much Rand? Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                         Date: 12 Dec 2006 17:45:08 From: Susan Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I assume you are on the side of legalizing and taxing drugs, right? "Follow" <43086214@recpoker.com > wrote in message news:1165966646$920633@recpoker.com... > > > > On Dec 12 2006 4:04 PM, comfail wrote: > >> Welcome to the war on drugs Follow. Some people have been fighting it for >> years. > > Hey, I've been in those trenches for years myself. We may not agree on > this > issue, but I'm sure we would be on the same side for many other issues. > I've > had arguments this long with just as many people about legalizing drugs > (all > drugs). > > It's kinda fun being the odd duck. Do you read much Rand? > > > > > Follow :) > > _______________________________________________________________ > New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com                           Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:06:26 From: Joe Long Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... Susan wrote: > I assume you are on the side of legalizing and taxing drugs, right? I don't know if he is, but I am. I believe that the "War on Drugs" has caused more harm to more people than all the drug addiction in our history. The prohibition efforts only serve to drive up the price and drive the trade underground, leading to more crime and corruption and destroying lives. It actually increases the incentive to hook new addicts, due to the enormous profits. If drugs (yes, including crack and heroin) were cheaply available at legal outlets, with taxes used for treatment and education, before long we would not only have far less crime and violence in our cities (and less corruption of officials), but fewer addicts as well. Alas, the "Drug Warriors" are too entrenched and our politicians too "hooked" on the WoD (those who aren't actually on the take from drug dealers) for this to come about any time soon. -- Joe Long aka ChipRider Somewhere on the Range                             Date: 12 Dec 2006 19:23:03 From: Susan Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... I have been on that bandwagon for a long time. I totally agree. "Joe Long" <nospam@spam.com > wrote in message news:n_CdncInh6-kz-LYnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@giganews.com... > Susan wrote: >> I assume you are on the side of legalizing and taxing drugs, right? > > I don't know if he is, but I am. > > I believe that the "War on Drugs" has caused more harm to more people than > all the drug addiction in our history. The prohibition efforts only serve > to drive up the price and drive the trade underground, leading to more > crime and corruption and destroying lives. It actually increases the > incentive to hook new addicts, due to the enormous profits. If drugs > (yes, including crack and heroin) were cheaply available at legal outlets, > with taxes used for treatment and education, before long we would not only > have far less crime and violence in our cities (and less corruption of > officials), but fewer addicts as well. > > Alas, the "Drug Warriors" are too entrenched and our politicians too > "hooked" on the WoD (those who aren't actually on the take from drug > dealers) for this to come about any time soon. > > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range >                           Date: 13 Dec From: Gary Carson Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 5:43 PM, Susan wrote: > I assume you are on the side of legalizing and taxing drugs, right? He's on the right side of everything.  He's the person Ron Paul was talking about why he ran for Congress as a Republican rather than a Libertarian. Libertarians don't care about winning, they just want to be right. > > > "Follow" <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in message > news:1165966646$920633@recpoker.com... > > > > > > > > On Dec 12 2006 4:04 PM, comfail wrote: > > > >> Welcome to the war on drugs Follow. Some people have been fighting it for > >> years. > > > > Hey, I've been in those trenches for years myself. We may not agree on > > this > > issue, but I'm sure we would be on the same side for many other issues. > > I've > > had arguments this long with just as many people about legalizing drugs > > (all > > drugs). > > > > It's kinda fun being the odd duck. Do you read much Rand? > > > > > > > > > > Follow :) > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > New Feature: Mark All As Read! - / Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                             Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 5:26 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > > > > On Dec 12 2006 5:43 PM, Susan wrote: > > > I assume you are on the side of legalizing and taxing drugs, right? > > He's on the right side of everything.  He's the person Ron Paul was talking > about why he ran for Congress as a Republican rather than a Libertarian. > > Libertarians don't care about winning, they just want to be right. Ron Paul ran as a Republican to get free votes, no other reason.  I'm as far into the Libertarian platform as one can be.  It was very interesting when I first read the party platform (after formulating my own political beliefs, which as Comfail says, are the same as the founders of this country) and found next to nothing that I didn't agree with.  I found what I would have had on my list of "if I were king of the world" wishes as a party platform.  I immediately identified from that point on as a Libertarian, and proudly so ever since. So don't feel like you're causing me shame by saying I am deeply a Libertarian ideologue, it doesn't offend me, it makes me proud.  It makes me proud to know that I can cause shame to most political shills on their positions with simple, rational thought. The black sheep in the Libertarian party are the Anarchists that have found a home with us, Gary.  I'm not an Anarchist, just a minimalist. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                             Date: 13 Dec From: comfail Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 4:26 PM, Gary Carson wrote: > > > > On Dec 12 2006 5:43 PM, Susan wrote: > > > I assume you are on the side of legalizing and taxing drugs, right? > > He's on the right side of everything.  He's the person Ron Paul was talking > about why he ran for Congress as a Republican rather than a Libertarian. > > Libertarians don't care about winning, they just want to be right. I guess we have had years of seeing what happens with the two parties who only care about winning, not about what is right. No thanks, I'll stick to the principals that this country was founded on. > > > > > > > > > > "Follow" <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in message > > news:1165966646$920633@recpoker.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12 2006 4:04 PM, comfail wrote: > > > > > >> Welcome to the war on drugs Follow. Some people have been fighting it for > > >> years. > > > > > > Hey, I've been in those trenches for years myself. We may not agree on > > > this > > > issue, but I'm sure we would be on the same side for many other issues. > > > I've > > > had arguments this long with just as many people about legalizing drugs > > > (all > > > drugs). > > > > > > It's kinda fun being the odd duck. Do you read much Rand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Follow :) > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > > New Feature: Mark All As Read! - / > Gary Carson > http://www.garycarson.com > > _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com                           Date: 13 Dec From: comfail Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 3:43 PM, Susan wrote: > I assume you are on the side of legalizing and taxing drugs, right? > > Yes, Yes, Yes. Put the money towards drug education so that kids today don't > screw up their lives addicting their minds to mindless crap. They are going > to have it hard enough in the world we are leaving them. Tax the shit out of > it. Just quit putting people in jail for it. And Follow, if what you say > about Rand is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, you have my respect. > "Follow" <43086214@recpoker.com> wrote in message > news:1165966646$920633@recpoker.com... > > > > > > > > On Dec 12 2006 4:04 PM, comfail wrote: > > > >> Welcome to the war on drugs Follow. Some people have been fighting it for > >> years. > > > > Hey, I've been in those trenches for years myself. We may not agree on > > this > > issue, but I'm sure we would be on the same side for many other issues. > > I've > > had arguments this long with just as many people about legalizing drugs > > (all > > drugs). > > > > It's kinda fun being the odd duck. Do you read much Rand? > > > > > > > > > > Follow :) > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com/ _______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com                           Date: 13 Dec From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 4:43 PM, Susan wrote: > I assume you are on the side of legalizing and taxing drugs, right? In short, yes. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 12 Dec 19:48:58 From: CHarrison100 Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... The following is an opinion that has no research into it. It's all money man. Smoking is legal so the Government can Tax the hell out of it but smokers will still pay. By restricting where you smoke it also reduces the number of other people it has to pay long term health care coverage for. Do you think that the provincial health systems want to pay for your treatment? I am not sure about the states but I am guessing that you have some sort of coverage in your Social Security benifits. Thansk for reading. _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com     Date: 12 Dec 19:53:41 From: Follow Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... On Dec 12 2006 12:48 PM, CHarrison100 wrote: > > The following is an opinion that has no research into it. > > It's all money man. > > Smoking is legal so the Government can Tax the hell out of it but smokers will > still pay. > > By restricting where you smoke it also reduces the number of other people it > has > to pay long term health care coverage for. Do you think that the provincial > health systems want to pay for your treatment? I am not sure about the states > but I am guessing that you have some sort of coverage in your Social Security > benifits. > > Thansk for reading. There is a lot of truth to what you're saying, but it's difficult to argue subterfuge and hidden intention.  It's a fact that many laws go through our Congress on false pretense, but pointing out the bullshit that is their facade helps to fix that. I have a problem with the rest of the stuff you mentioned too (state sponsored medical/social security), but that's a discussion for another time.  But I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I would rather the system that you're describing continue under greater and greater strain until it snaps and we realize as a nation that it's ridiculously unreasonable. Follow  :) _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com   Date: 18 Dec 2006 15:37:45 From: DoctorK Subject: Re: OT: On smoking bans and the like... How many more posts until we hear about the Nazis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Doc